Monday 1 September 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.
NEW: Join me for SQE MCQ livestreams every Wednesday at 1pm. We’ll be working through the SRA’s sample questions and figuring out what’s what! Get started here.
This Week’s Question: A man leaves a written note before his death stating: “I want my friend to take care of some of my savings. She should use them as she thinks best for my grandchildren.” After his death, a dispute arises. The grandchildren claim a valid trust exists in their favour, while the friend argues she is free to use the money as she wishes.
Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?
A. A valid trust exists because the grandchildren are identified as beneficiaries.
B. A valid trust exists because the man clearly intended to create legal obligations.
C. No trust exists because the words used express only a wish rather than a binding intention.
D. No trust exists because money cannot be the subject of a trust.
E. The note is invalid unless it was witnessed and executed as a formal deed.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about the law of trusts, by watching this video
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Free study planner for the January 2026 SQE1 sitting, starting this August! On 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 consumer buys a bottle of soft drink from a shop. After drinking half of it, the consumer becomes ill when a harmful object is later discovered inside the bottle. The manufacturer argues that it sold the product to the retailer, not the consumer, and therefore has no duty to the person who drank it. The consumer brings a claim in tort for compensation. Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?
A. The manufacturer owes no duty because the contract was with the retailer, not the consumer.
B. The manufacturer may owe a duty because it is reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would drink the product.
C. The retailer alone is liable because the sale was made directly to the consumer.
D. The consumer cannot claim in tort because only contractual rights are available for defective products.
E. The consumer must prove the manufacturer intended to cause harm in order to succeed.
✅ Correct Answer: B. The manufacturer may owe a duty because it is reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would drink the product.
In tort law, a duty of care exists where harm is reasonably foreseeable. In product liability cases, manufacturers can be liable to ultimate consumers, even if no direct contract exists, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] (the “neighbour principle”).
- A duty arises because it is foreseeable that the consumer will use the product.
- The fact that the contract was with a retailer does not shield the manufacturer.
- Intent to harm is unnecessary; liability is based on negligence.
- Contract law remedies may also exist against the retailer, but tort liability extends to the manufacturer.
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 Glinavos
Leave a Reply