Monday 6 October 2025
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.
Channel member exclusive: As we have grown in channel members, I will be offering members- only chats on YouTube. These can be attended by those who have joined the channel as paid members (£2.99/month) and the recordings will be available to them to watch later too. Meeting TODAY at 12.30 here.
Coffee Break! Join me this Wednesday at 1pm for our MCQ coffee break. I will be going through the SRA’s sample questions with you. Click here to access. Free for everyone!
This Week’s Question: A woman parks her car in a public car park operated by a private company. At the entrance, there is a small sign displaying the parking charges and a note stating “All vehicles parked at owner’s risk – see full conditions displayed inside.” She takes a ticket from a machine and parks. Inside the car park, a large board near the payment machine lists additional terms, including a clause excluding liability for damage caused by the company’s negligence. Her car is later damaged due to a defective barrier operated by the company.
When the company seeks to rely on the exclusion clause, how is the court most likely to decide?
A. The exclusion clause is effective because it was displayed somewhere within the car park.
B. The exclusion clause is effective because the woman accepted the ticket and parked.
C. The exclusion clause is not incorporated because it was not brought to her attention before the contract was formed.
D. The exclusion clause is not incorporated because exclusion clauses are automatically void in consumer contracts.
E. The exclusion clause is effective because reasonable notice is not required in a standard form contract.
Dig Deeper: Learn more the incorporation of contract terms, by watching this video
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Free study planner for the January 2026 SQE1 sitting! Visit https://glintiss.co.uk/study-planner/
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 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
Last Week’s Question: A supermarket hires staff to manage its petrol station. One evening, a customer asked a staff member for help at the till. The staff member became verbally abusive, then followed the customer outside and physically attacked him. The customer sues the supermarket for damages. The supermarket argues that it should not be liable because the staff member’s actions were a personal frolic of his own, motivated by anger rather than by his work duties. How is the court most likely to decide?
A. The supermarket is not liable, as violent assaults are always outside the scope of employment.
B. The supermarket is liable, because the staff member’s role in interacting with customers created the occasion for the assault.
C. The supermarket is not liable, because the staff member acted from personal hostility and not for the benefit of the employer.
D. The supermarket is liable, but only if it had expressly authorised the use of physical force by its staff.
E. The supermarket is not liable, because employers cannot be sued for the wrongful acts of their employees.
✅ Correct Answer: B The supermarket is liable, because the staff member’s role in interacting with customers created the occasion for the assault. Feedback: The test applied by the courts (see Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11) is whether the wrongful act is closely connected with the employee’s duties.
The employee’s job involved dealing with customers, and the assault occurred immediately following a customer interaction. This satisfies the “close connection” test, even if the act was motivated by personal anger.
- Option A is wrong: intentional assaults may fall within scope where connected to employment.
- Option C is wrong: motive is not determinative; the link between duties and act is key.
- Option D is wrong: liability is not limited to authorised conduct.
- Option E is wrong: employers can be sued for wrongs of employees committed in the course of employment.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group or 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