Monday 17 June 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: Mary is an elderly woman who recently inherited a significant amount of money. Her nephew, John, who has been helping her manage her finances, persuades her to transfer a large portion of her inheritance to him, claiming he will invest it wisely on her behalf. Mary, trusting John completely and feeling pressured by his insistence, agrees and transfers the money. Later, Mary learns that John has used the money for his personal expenses and not for investments as promised. Mary feels that she was tricked by John and wants to take legal action to recover her money. Which of the following elements must Mary prove to successfully reclaim the funds in this scenario?
1. That John made a fraudulent misrepresentation about the investments
2. That Mary lacked mental capacity to make the financial decision
3. That there was a relationship of trust and confidence between Mary and John, and that John exploited this relationship to Mary’s detriment
4. That Mary was physically coerced by John to transfer the money
5. That Mary received no consideration for the money transferred to John
Free Study Planner: You can download our SQE1 Study Planner for the January 2025 exam by clicking here.
Special Offer: Want an AI SQE tutor? Newsletter subscribers benefit from 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.
Study Material: For more on the topic of this week’s question see the video linked here and if you are looking* for a relevant title, see here.
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: Tom is driving his car carefully through a residential neighbourhood when he suddenly loses control of his vehicle due to a defect in the brakes, which he was unaware of. As a result, he swerves onto the sidewalk and hits a pedestrian, Sarah, causing her significant injuries. Sarah decides to sue Tom, seeking compensation for her injuries and medical expenses. Tom argues that he should not be held liable because the brake defect was a manufacturing fault that he could not have foreseen or prevented.
Which of the following principles is most relevant in determining Tom’s liability for Sarah’s injuries in this case?
1. The principle of vicarious liability
2. The principle of strict liability
3. The principle of duty of care
4. The principle of contributory negligence
5. The principle of res ipsa loquitur
Correct Answer: 3. The principle of duty of care. Feedback: In this negligence case, the principle of duty of care is most relevant in determining Tom’s liability for Sarah’s injuries. To establish negligence, Sarah must prove that Tom owed her a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused her injuries as a result. In this scenario, Tom, as a driver, owed a duty of care to other road users, including pedestrians. The defect in the brakes may complicate the assessment of breach, but the primary focus is whether Tom’s actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.
Other principles mentioned are not directly applicable in this context: vicarious liability involves holding one person liable for the actions of another (typically an employer for an employee), strict liability applies to cases where liability is imposed without fault, contributory negligence involves the injured party’s own negligence contributing to the harm, and res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the mere occurrence of certain types of accidents. Therefore, the principle of duty of care is central to assessing Tom’s liability in this negligence 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
*As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Leave a Reply