Monday 22 April 2024
Dear Subscriber,
I 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.
Question:
Alice books a taxi to take her to the airport to catch a flight scheduled to depart at 10:00 AM. The taxi service, operated by Bob, assures Alice that the taxi will arrive at her location by 8:00 AM to allow ample time for the journey. However, due to a delay in traffic and a breakdown of one of Bob’s taxis, the taxi arrives at Alice’s location at 9:30 AM, causing her to miss her flight. As a result, Alice incurs additional costs for rebooking her flight, accommodation, and rescheduling her appointments at her destination. Alice decides to take legal action against Bob for breach of contract. Which principle governs the assessment of damages for breach of contract in this scenario?
- The principle of caveat emptor
- The principle of equitable estoppel
- The principle of punitive damages
- The principle of remoteness of damages
- The principle of equitable rescission
Special Offer: We are celebrating reaching 200 subscribers by offering a special discount to Practice Works AI-led learning support for SQE1. Visit https://www.practiceworks.io/sqe-prep and use IOANNIS20 for 20% off any paid plan (available only for the first 30 people who use it!). Terms & Conditions apply.
Relevant Reading: For a quick text relevant* to this week’s question see here.
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: In a civil trial, a dispute arises regarding the quality of construction work performed by a contractor on a commercial building. The plaintiff, a property management company, alleges that the defendant contractor’s workmanship was substandard, resulting in structural issues and safety concerns. As part of their case, the plaintiff intends to call an expert witness, Dr. Smith, who has a Ph.D. in civil engineering with extensive experience in building construction and structural analysis. However, the defendant objects to Dr. Smith’s qualifications, arguing that although Dr. Smith is knowledgeable in civil engineering, their expertise does not specifically relate to commercial building construction. Which legal principle governs the admissibility of expert testimony in this scenario?
- The rule against hearsay
- The rule of relevance
- The rule against opinion evidence
- The rule of admissibility
- The rule of proportionality
Correct Answer: 4. The rule of admissibility. Feedback: The admissibility of expert testimony in court proceedings is governed by the rule of admissibility. According to this rule, an expert witness will be permitted to testify if the court determines that they are qualified in the subject matter requiring their expertise. While it is generally expected that an expert witness will possess appropriate qualifications and experience in the relevant field, it is not always necessary that they have specific professional qualifications related to the subject matter of the dispute. In this scenario, Dr. Smith’s qualifications in civil engineering, combined with their experience in building construction and structural analysis, may still render them competent to provide expert testimony on the quality of construction work, despite the defendant’s objection. Ultimately, it is up to the trial judge to assess Dr. Smith’s qualifications and determine whether their expertise is sufficiently relevant and reliable to be admitted as evidence in the case.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group. Feel free to forward this email to anyone you think will benefit.
You will hear from me again soon.
All the best
Dr Ioannis Glinavos
* Links may be affiliate links, which allow me to earn a small commission at no cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Leave a Reply