Monday 25 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 where we can communicate directly.
Question: LuxeStay Ltd. is a luxury vacation rental company that contracts with property owners to manage and rent out their homes to high-end clients. As part of its agreement with property owners, LuxeStay Ltd. includes a clause in its standard terms and conditions stating that it will not be liable for any damage caused to the property by renters. Sarah, a property owner who signed this agreement, discovers that one of the renters, a client arranged by LuxeStay Ltd., caused extensive damage to her home during a stay, including smashed furniture, ruined carpets, and broken windows. The repair costs total £25,000. Sarah claims that LuxeStay Ltd. failed to vet the renter properly and is therefore liable for the damage. When Sarah demands compensation, LuxeStay Ltd. points to the exclusion clause in the agreement and refuses liability. Which of the following legal principles or laws is most likely to determine the enforceability of the exclusion clause in this scenario, and what key factors will the court consider?
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the court will automatically void the exclusion clause as unfair, as it limits liability for damage to property.
- The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; the court will consider whether the exclusion clause is reasonable, taking into account a number of factors, including the parties’ bargaining power.
- The principle of vicarious liability; the court will assess whether LuxeStay Ltd. can be held liable for the actions of its renters.
- The principle of freedom of contract; the exclusion clause will be upheld because Sarah willingly signed the agreement.
- The principle of frustration; the court will determine whether the damage to the property made the contract impossible to fulfill.
Study Material: For more on exclusion clauses see 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: 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.
Correct Answer: 2. The principle of vicarious liability; Mason can be held liable for Jack’s negligence if the act occurred in the course of his employment. Feedback: Under the principle of vicarious liability, an employer can be held liable for the torts committed by an employee if those acts occur in the course of the employee’s employment. In this case, Mason, as Jack’s employer, can be held vicariously liable for Clara’s injuries caused by Jack’s negligent act of leaving the equipment unsecured on the scaffolding. The key test is whether the act was committed in the scope of Jack’s employment, which it clearly was in this scenario. Option 1 is incorrect because contributory negligence involves the injured party’s contribution to their own harm, and there is no suggestion that Clara contributed to her injuries. Option 3 is incorrect because strict liability generally applies in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or certain statutory duties, and construction work does not automatically impose strict liability. Option 4 is incorrect because non-delegable duties impose direct liability on someone for ensuring that a task is carried out safely, but this principle does not negate the relevance of vicarious liability for an employee’s actions. Option 5 is incorrect because occupiers’ liability governs the responsibilities of landowners or occupiers toward visitors on their property, which is not directly applicable here since Clara’s injury occurred due to negligence during construction rather than unsafe premises. Thus, the most relevant legal principle is vicarious liability, making Mason potentially liable for Clara’s injuries caused by Jack’s negligence.
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