Monday 9 March 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.
Livestreams coming up! Join me Wednesday at 1pm live for our MCQ workshop. Check the lives tab for the next available stream. This week’s stream is for the whole community going through SQE1 MCQs.
This Week’s Question: A man is arrested on suspicion of burglary and taken to a police station. Before the police begin questioning him about the alleged offence, he asks to speak to a solicitor. The custody officer notes the request but the investigating officer suggests starting the interview immediately because the evidence is strong and delaying the interview may allow the suspect time to change his story. The interview begins without a solicitor present and the man makes several incriminating statements.
Under the rules governing police questioning of suspects in England and Wales, which of the following best reflects the correct legal position?
A. The police may proceed with the interview immediately if they believe the suspect is likely to change his story after speaking to a solicitor.
B. The police may interview the suspect without a solicitor if the custody officer considers the evidence against the suspect to be strong.
C. The police should normally delay the interview until the suspect has had the opportunity to consult a solicitor, unless a recognised exception applies.
D. The police must cancel the interview entirely once the suspect asks for legal advice.
E. The police may continue the interview provided the suspect confirms he understands the questions being asked.
Dig Deeper: Learn more FLK Criminal Law and Practice, on https://youtu.be/hFpv1wMawMo
Exclusive Subscriber Freebies & Discounts:
1) Try my FREE MCQ Test Bank! This newsletter’s questions in a test bank you can attempt! Currently with 40 questions, with more added all the time. Try on https://glintiss.co.uk/yannis-mcqs/
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/
4) Preparing for the July sitting of SQE1? Try my free Study Planner on https://glintiss.co.uk/study-planner/
5) Find Study Guides, concept summaries, FLK breakdowns and flashcards on Substack in a series of posts. Subscribe here, if you were looking forward to this type of resource, or gain access through the new ‘preppers’ membership level on YouTube.
Last Week’s Question: A small company contracts with the company, a specialist software provider, for a bespoke accounting system. The company’s standard terms include the following clause:
“The company shall have no liability for any loss arising out of the supply of the software, including loss caused by its negligence or any pre-contractual statements.”
Before the contract was signed, the company’s sales representative stated that the software was “fully compatible” with the small company’s existing systems. This statement was untrue and induced the contract. The software is incompatible and causes substantial financial loss. The small company seeks to rescind the contract and claim damages. Which is the best answer?
A. The clause is fully effective because it expressly excludes negligence and pre-contractual statements.
B. The clause is ineffective in excluding liability for misrepresentation unless it satisfies the statutory reasonableness test.
C. The clause is automatically void because negligence can never be excluded in a commercial contract.
D. The small company cannot rescind because the contract contains an entire agreement clause.
E. The clause is effective because both parties are businesses and therefore statutory controls do not apply.
✅ Correct Answer: B. The clause is ineffective in excluding liability for misrepresentation unless it satisfies the statutory reasonableness test. Feedback: This question tests multiple layers simultaneously: misrepresentation, exclusion clauses, and statutory control. The pre-contractual statement about compatibility is capable of being a misrepresentation if it was false and induced the contract. The clause attempts to exclude liability both for negligence and for “pre-contractual statements,” which is effectively an attempt to exclude liability for misrepresentation. Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.3, any term that seeks to exclude or restrict liability for misrepresentation is subject to the reasonableness test (as defined by UCTA principles). Therefore, such a clause is not automatically effective simply because it is clearly drafted. It must satisfy reasonableness. That is why B is correct.
A is wrong because clarity alone does not bypass statutory control.
C is wrong because negligence liability can sometimes be excluded in business-to-business contracts, subject to statutory restrictions.
D is wrong because an entire agreement clause does not automatically prevent a claim for misrepresentation; statutory control still applies.
E is wrong because UCTA and the Misrepresentation Act can apply in business-to-business contexts; being commercial parties does not remove statutory scrutiny.
Why this is difficult in SQE terms: The trap is that candidates often focus only on negligence and forget misrepresentation, assume “clear words = enforceable clause”, forget that exclusion of misrepresentation liability triggers a statutory reasonableness test, treat entire agreement clauses as absolute shields. The correct exam approach is sequential: Identify whether there was a misrepresentation. Identify whether the clause attempts to exclude liability for it. Apply statutory control (Misrepresentation Act s.3 and reasonableness). Only then assess enforceability. If you would like, I can now draft an even more complex contract question combining mistake, misrepresentation, and incorporation of terms by reference, which is where the SQE often becomes genuinely brutal.
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