Monday 23 September 2024
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
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: Daniel owns a small construction company and agrees to build a custom greenhouse for Sarah’s home for £20,000, with a completion deadline of three months. The contract specifies that the greenhouse will be constructed using standard materials, and time is of the essence due to Sarah’s plans to host a significant event in her garden shortly after the project’s completion.
Two months into the project, a sudden global shortage of construction materials causes prices to skyrocket, and a new environmental regulation prohibits the use of the initially agreed-upon materials without costly modifications. Facing these challenges, Daniel informs Sarah that he cannot complete the project on time unless she agrees to pay an additional £10,000. In return, Daniel offers to use premium, eco-friendly materials that comply with the new regulations and extends a five-year warranty instead of the standard one-year warranty.
Under significant pressure to have the greenhouse completed before her event, and with little time to find an alternative builder, Sarah reluctantly agrees to the new terms. After the project is completed, Sarah is dissatisfied with the additional cost and refuses to pay the extra £10,000.
Which of the following is correct?
1. Daniel is prevented from enforcing the additional payment because Sarah relied on the original agreement.
2. Daniel provided fresh consideration by offering premium materials and an extended warranty, making the modification enforceable.
3. Sarah can void the modification as Daniel applied illegitimate pressure without giving her a reasonable alternative.
4. The contract was frustrated by the new regulations, discharging both parties from their obligations.
5. Sarah was unduly influenced by Daniel’s position of power and her urgent need to complete the project.
Study Material: For more on contract law see the video linked here and if you are looking for a relevant title, see here. Discount Code: Use core “REVSQE10” for 10% off all products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at https://revise4law.co.uk/revisesqe-shop/
Free Study Planner: You can download our SQE1 Study Planner for the January 2025 exam by clicking here.
Join the community: Become a member of ‘iGlinavos Scholars’ on YouTube (£2.99/month, click here for info), get priority access to new videos, and participate in members-only livestreams, where we work through SQE1 MCQs together, analysing questions and answers. Also, you get access to a member’s only FB group for support directly from me and other candidates. Receive priority notification of discounts and deals on products and services that can help you succeed, and much more!
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: The UK government has introduced a new bill in Parliament that seeks to extend the detention period for suspects held under terrorism charges from 14 days to 28 days without charge. The bill also contains provisions that restrict public access to certain court hearings involving national security matters. Several civil rights organizations argue that the proposed bill violates fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and seek a judicial review to challenge the bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Which of the following rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is most directly engaged by the proposed bill, and what is the most appropriate legal principle for the court to apply in reviewing the bill’s compatibility?
- The right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR); the court should apply the principle of proportionality to determine whether the extended detention period is necessary and justified.
- The right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR); the court should determine whether the bill adequately provides for legal representation for detained suspects.
- The right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR); the court should assess whether the bill infringes on the privacy rights of suspects and their families.
- The prohibition of torture (Article 3 ECHR); the court should determine whether the extended detention period constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment.
- The right to freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR); the court should assess whether the restrictions on public access to court hearings violate the right to receive and impart information.
Correct Answer: 1. The right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR); the court should apply the principle of proportionality to determine whether the extended detention period is necessary and justified. Feedback: The proposed bill directly engages the right to liberty and security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 5 protects individuals from arbitrary detention and requires that any deprivation of liberty be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The extension of the detention period for suspects held under terrorism charges from 14 to 28 days without charge raises concerns about potential violations of this right. The court, in conducting a judicial review of the bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, would apply the principle of proportionality to determine whether the extended detention period is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim (such as national security) and whether it is proportionate to the threat posed by terrorism. Option 2 is incorrect because the right to a fair trial (Article 6) is concerned with the fairness of legal proceedings, not specifically with the length of detention without charge. Option 3 is incorrect because the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) is not directly engaged by the extended detention period. Option 4 is incorrect because the prohibition of torture (Article 3) relates to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and while extended detention may raise concerns, it does not inherently constitute torture or inhuman treatment. Option 5 is incorrect because the right to freedom of expression (Article 10) is primarily concerned with the free flow of information and public access to information, which is not the primary issue raised by the extended detention period.
Therefore, the most directly engaged right is the right to liberty and security under Article 5, and the court will likely apply the principle of proportionality in reviewing the bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.
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.
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