Monday 18 November 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.
Support me and this newsletter: Become a member of ‘iGlinavos Scholars’ on YouTube (£2.99/month, click here for info) and get priority access to new videos. Also, you get access to a members’-only FB group for support directly from me and other candidates.
Question: Mason owns a small construction company that has been hired to renovate a block of flats. While working on the project, one of Mason’s employees, Jack, accidentally leaves a piece of heavy equipment on the edge of a scaffolding platform. The equipment falls and hits a pedestrian, Clara, who was walking below, causing her serious injuries. Clara decides to sue Mason for compensation, arguing that he is responsible for the negligence of his employee. Which of the following legal principles is most relevant in determining Mason’s liability for Clara’s injuries?
1. The principle of contributory negligence; Clara must prove she did not contribute to her own injuries to claim damages.
2. The principle of vicarious liability; Mason can be held liable for Jack’s negligence if the act occurred in the course of Jack’s employment.
3. The principle of strict liability; Mason is automatically liable for any harm caused during construction projects.
4. The principle of non-delegable duties; Mason is only liable if he personally caused the harm.
5. The principle of occupiers’ liability; Mason’s liability depends on whether Clara was lawfully present in the area.
Study Material: For more on the law of tort the video linked here.
Free Study Planner: You can download our NEW SQE1 Study Planner for the July 2025 exam by clicking here.
Discount Codes: 1) Use code “REVSQE10” for 10% off all ReviseSQE products (including bundles) and free p&p for printed resources when purchasing directly at https://revise4law.co.uk/revisesqe-shop/ . 2) Use “IOANNIS” to get 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor Law Drills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: Sophie is an elderly woman who owns a valuable piece of land. Her nephew, Tom, has been helping her with her day-to-day needs and managing her finances. Tom suggests that Sophie should sell her land to him at a price significantly below its market value. Sophie is reluctant, but Tom insists, saying that he might no longer be able to help her if she doesn’t agree to the sale. Feeling pressured and fearing the loss of Tom’s support, Sophie reluctantly signs the sale agreement. A few weeks later, Sophie realizes that she may have been pressured into selling her land at an undervalued price and seeks legal advice on how to challenge the validity of the sale.
Which of the following principles best applies to Sophie’s situation, and what must she demonstrate to challenge the validity of the contract?
1. The principle of undue influence; Sophie must demonstrate that Tom exerted improper pressure on her due to their relationship of trust and confidence.
2. The principle of duress; Sophie must show that Tom used illegitimate threats to coerce her into signing the contract.
3. The principle of misrepresentation; Sophie must demonstrate that Tom made false statements about the value of the land to induce her agreement.
4. The principle of unconscionable bargain; Sophie must prove that Tom took advantage of her vulnerability without providing adequate consideration.
5. The principle of mistake; Sophie must show that the contract was signed under mutual mistake and seek rescission.
Correct Answer: 1. The principle of undue influence; Sophie must prove that Tom exerted improper pressure on her due to their relationship of trust and confidence. Feedback: In this situation, Sophie may be able to challenge the validity of the contract on the grounds of undue influence. Undue influence occurs when one party abuses a relationship of trust and confidence to persuade the other party to enter into a contract, often resulting in an unfair transaction. Sophie and Tom’s relationship, where Tom provides support and assistance, may be seen as one where undue influence could arise. If Sophie can demonstrate that Tom used his influence over her to pressure her into selling the land at an undervalued price, she may be able to rescind the contract. Option 2 is incorrect because duress typically involves coercion through threats of harm or illegitimate pressure, such as physical or economic threats, rather than exploiting a relationship of influence. Option 3 is incorrect because misrepresentation involves false statements about a material fact that induce one party into a contract. There is no indication that Tom made false statements about the land’s value. Option 4, unconscionable bargain, can apply in cases of severe inequality or exploitation, but the principle of undue influence is more directly relevant when a relationship of trust is abused. Option 5 is incorrect because contract rescission on the grounds of mutual mistake would require both parties to be mistaken about a fundamental fact, which does not apply here. Therefore, the principle of undue influence is most applicable, and Sophie must demonstrate that Tom exerted improper pressure on her due to their relationship of trust and confidence.
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