Monday 28 September 2026
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
Hope you had a great weekend. Please see below for the question, the answer to the previous question and associated resources. This is the web version of this newsletter.
OCTOBER SUPER SESSION: Following the success of our Contract Law event, I will be holding another live FLK Business Law & Tax SQE Super Session on 21 October. 30 Places available upon application. If you would like to join, email me on events@glintiss.co.uk . Further info on events.dryannis.co.uk
Livestream! Join me live this Wednesday at 1pm for FLK2 Criminal Liability and Practice MCQshttps://youtube.com/live/zEtfz2CI1v8
This Week’s Question: A company buys stock from a supplier on 30-day credit terms. Because of a temporary downturn, the company tells the supplier that it cannot meet the full amounts falling due over the next six months. The supplier writes: “For the next six months, we will accept 70% of each amount due in full satisfaction for that period.” The company pays 70% of every invoice on time and arranges its finances on the basis of that assurance. At the end of the six months, trading improves. The supplier then demands full payment of all future invoices and also claims the unpaid 30% from each of the previous six months. Which of the following best describes the supplier’s legal position?
A. The supplier may recover both the historic shortfall and the full amount of future invoices because part payment of a debt cannot affect the creditor’s strict legal rights.
B. The supplier may recover the historic shortfall because the company gave no fresh consideration, but must continue accepting 70% of future invoices for a reasonable period.
C. The supplier cannot recover the historic shortfall, but may require full payment of invoices falling due after the agreed six-month concession has ended.
D. The supplier cannot recover either the historic shortfall or the full amount of future invoices because its written assurance permanently varied the payment obligation.
E. The supplier cannot recover the historic shortfall because receiving regular partial payments gave it a sufficient practical benefit to make the reduced-payment agreement binding.
Dig Deeper: Want to revise Contract Law? Watch my updated video on https://youtu.be/VpxFbM1QzzE and read https://dryannissqe.substack.com/p/contract-law-for-sqe1
Exclusive Subscriber Offers:
1) Missed the Contract Law Super Session? Get the Digital Pack here, and don’t forget YT Prepper and Substack members get £5 off (contact me for discount code).
2) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at their shop.
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 10% off any plan on Law Drills at https://www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/
Last Week’s Question: A woman executes a valid will leaving her residuary estate equally between her two children, with no express survivorship requirement. She separately leaves £60,000 to her brother, with the remainder of her estate passing under the residuary clause. One child dies before her, leaving two children who survive the woman. Her brother also dies before her, leaving a daughter. The will contains no substitute beneficiaries and no provision excluding the statutory anti-lapse rules. Which of the following best describes how the estate should be distributed?
A. The surviving child receives the entire residuary estate, and the brother’s daughter receives the £60,000 legacy under the statutory anti-lapse provisions.
B. The deceased child’s children share their parent’s half of the residuary estate, while the brother’s £60,000 legacy lapses and falls into the residue.
C. The deceased child’s estate receives half the residue, while the brother’s £60,000 legacy passes to his daughter under the intestacy rules.
D. The surviving child and both grandchildren share the residue equally, while the brother’s legacy passes to his daughter by representation.
E. Both the deceased child’s share and the brother’s legacy lapse, leaving the surviving child entitled to the entire estate under the residuary clause.
Correct answer: B. The deceased child’s children share their parent’s half of the residuary estate, while the brother’s £60,000 legacy lapses and falls into the residue. Feedback: The question tests the interaction between the doctrine of lapse, the statutory anti-lapse provisions and the distribution of residue. A testamentary gift ordinarily fails where the intended beneficiary dies before the testator. The deceased beneficiary’s estate does not automatically receive the gift. However, section 33 Wills Act 1837 creates an important exception for gifts to the testator’s children or other direct descendants. Under section 33(1) Wills Act 1837, where a child or other direct descendant of the testator dies before the testator, leaving issue who are living at the testator’s death, the gift takes effect in favour of that issue, unless a contrary intention appears in the will. Section 33(2) also addresses class gifts to children or other descendants. Here, one child predeceased the woman but left two children who survived her. There is no contrary intention in the will. The deceased child’s half-share therefore passes to their two children, who divide it equally. Each grandchild receives one-quarter of the residuary estate. Section 33 does not extend to gifts made to the testator’s siblings. The £60,000 legacy therefore lapses because the brother died before the woman. His daughter does not automatically inherit the legacy merely because she is his descendant. Since the will contains an effective residuary clause, the failed pecuniary legacy falls into the residuary estate, rather than being distributed under intestacy.
A is incorrect. The deceased child’s share is preserved by section 33, while the brother’s daughter cannot rely on that provision because her father was not a direct descendant of the testator.
B is correct. The deceased child’s children inherit their parent’s half-share equally. The brother’s legacy lapses and increases the residuary estate.
C is incorrect. The deceased child’s share passes directly to the surviving issue under section 33, not into the deceased child’s estate. The brother’s daughter cannot claim the failed legacy under intestacy while an effective residuary clause disposes of it.
D is incorrect. Section 33 provides for distribution by family branch (per stirpes), not an equal division between all surviving children and grandchildren. The brother’s daughter also has no statutory entitlement to his legacy.
E is incorrect. The deceased child’s share does not lapse because section 33 applies. The surviving child therefore cannot inherit the entire residue.
Final distribution: Assuming the £60,000 legacy is available from the estate, it falls into the residue before the residue is divided. The essential distinction is that section 33 protects gifts to the testator’s direct descendants, not gifts to every relative. The grandchildren inherit their parent’s share by family branch rather than taking equal shares alongside the surviving child.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation on Reddit! Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
If you wish to unsubscribe: You can stop receiving the newsletter at any time by emailing us at newsletter@glintiss.co.uk with ‘unsubscribe’ as the subject. We will promptly remove your email address from our mailing list. Thank you for being with us.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis (Yannis) Glinavos
Leave a Reply