Monday 5 October 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 FLK1 Dispute Resolution MCQs
This Week’s Question: A company agrees to take a five-year lease of commercial premises. The landlord wants the lease to be excluded from the security of tenure provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The landlord serves the prescribed warning notice on the company 10 days before the company is due to enter into the lease. The company’s director signs a simple written declaration acknowledging the consequences of contracting out. The lease is then completed on the agreed date and records that sections 24 to 28 of the 1954 Act are excluded. Which of the following best describes the legal position?
A. The exclusion is effective because the warning notice was served before the lease was completed and the tenant signed a declaration acknowledging its effect.
B. The exclusion is ineffective because a commercial tenancy cannot be excluded from the security of tenure provisions for a term longer than three years.
C. The exclusion is effective because the lease itself expressly states that sections 24 to 28 of the 1954 Act do not apply to the tenancy.
D. The exclusion is ineffective because, where the warning notice is served less than 14 days before the tenant becomes bound, the tenant must make a statutory declaration.
E. The exclusion is ineffective because a tenant can contract out of security of tenure only after obtaining independent legal advice about the proposed lease.
Dig Deeper: Want to revise Property Law and Practice, in a calm and relaxing way? Watch https://youtu.be/LUdIxG55NGc
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 the 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 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.
Correct answer: 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. Feedback: The starting point is that the company has not provided fresh consideration for the supplier’s promise to accept less. Under Foakes v Beer, payment of a smaller sum in satisfaction of a larger debt does not ordinarily amount to consideration for a promise to waive the balance. The company was already obliged to pay the full invoiced amounts. The “practical benefit” reasoning does not alter that conclusion. In Re Selectmove Ltd, the Court of Appeal declined to extend the reasoning in Williams v Roffey Bros to part payment of debts, because that would be inconsistent with Foakes v Beer.
However, equity may prevent the supplier from going back on a clear promise where the company has relied upon it and it would be inequitable to permit the supplier to insist on its strict legal rights for the period covered by the promise. The classic authority is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. A landlord who had agreed to accept reduced rent during wartime conditions could return to the full rent once the relevant circumstances had ended, but could not retrospectively claim the waived amount for the concession period. That is closely analogous here. The supplier made a clear, time-limited promise to accept 70% for six months. The company relied upon it and paid exactly as agreed. Once the six-month period expires, the supplier may insist on full payment for future invoices, but the equitable doctrine may prevent it from retrospectively recovering the shortfall for the concession period.
A is too absolute. Although there is no fresh consideration, the creditor’s strict legal rights may still be restricted in equity.
B gets the treatment of the historic shortfall wrong and also ignores the fact that the concession was expressly limited to six months.
D goes too far. The assurance does not permanently rewrite the contract. The supplier’s full rights can revive once the concession period ends.
E is the key distractor. A commercial advantage from receiving regular part payments does not supply consideration for an agreement to accept less of a debt. Re Selectmove Ltd confirms that the practical-benefit principle does not apply in this context.
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