Monday 16 December 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.
Weekly SQE1 FLK1 livestreams! From January I will offer weekly livestreams on my YouTube channel. Channel members get to choose what we will talk about! Become a member of ‘iGlinavos Scholars’ on YouTube (£2.99/month, click here for info) and get your SQE questions answered live!
Question: Sophia contracts with Elite Builders Ltd. to renovate her home, agreeing on a total price of £50,000. The work is supposed to include a new kitchen, updated plumbing, and repairs to the roof. However, Elite Builders Ltd. completes only half the work, leaving the kitchen incomplete and failing to address the roof repairs. Sophia has already paid £30,000 upfront and must hire another contractor to finish the work at an additional cost of £25,000. She is considering her legal options and seeks to claim remedies against Elite Builders Ltd. for their failure to fulfill the contract.
Which of the following legal remedies is Sophia most likely entitled to in this situation, and what is the primary principle behind it?
1. Specific performance; Sophia can compel Elite Builders Ltd. to complete the renovation work as originally agreed.
2. Rescission; Sophia can cancel the contract and recover the £30,000 she has already paid.
3. Damages; Sophia can claim compensation for the additional cost of completing the work and any related losses caused by Elite Builders Ltd.’s breach.
4. Restitution; Sophia can recover the financial benefit Elite Builders Ltd. received by partially completing the work.
5. Injunction; Sophia can seek an order preventing Elite Builders Ltd. from working on other contracts until her renovation is completed.
Resource: Learn more about remedies by watching this video.
Free Study Planner: You can download our 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: Santa Claus contracts with The Grinch to deliver Christmas presents to Whoville. The contract specifies that The Grinch will use his sleigh to deliver all the presents by midnight on Christmas Eve for a fee of £10,000. Santa agrees to provide the gifts and ensure they are loaded onto the sleigh in advance. However, on Christmas Eve, The Grinch changes his mind and refuses to deliver the presents unless Santa pays an additional £5,000. Fearing disappointment in Whoville, Santa agrees to pay the additional amount. The Grinch completes the delivery, but after Christmas, Santa seeks legal advice to recover the extra £5,000.
Which of the following legal principles will most likely determine whether Santa can recover the £5,000 from The Grinch?
1. The principle of economic duress; Santa must prove that The Grinch exerted illegitimate pressure that left Santa with no practical alternative but to agree to the additional payment.
2. The principle of promissory estoppel; The Grinch can argue that Santa promised to pay the additional £5,000, which he relied on to complete the deliveries.
3. The principle of consideration; Santa must show that no fresh consideration was provided by The Grinch to justify the additional payment.
4. The principle of misrepresentation; Santa must prove that The Grinch made false statements to induce him to agree to the additional payment.
5. The principle of frustration; The Grinch can argue that unforeseen circumstances required a renegotiation of the contract.
Correct Answer: 1. The principle of economic duress; Santa must prove that The Grinch exerted illegitimate pressure that left Santa with no practical alternative but to agree to the additional payment. Feedback: Economic duress arises when one party exerts illegitimate pressure on another, leaving them with no reasonable alternative but to agree to a contractual variation. In this scenario, The Grinch’s refusal to fulfil his contractual obligations unless Santa agreed to pay an additional £5,000 likely constitutes economic duress. If Santa can prove that he agreed to the extra payment under such pressure, the court may allow him to recover the additional amount. Option 2 is incorrect because promissory estoppel requires reliance on a clear promise that is meant to be binding, but it cannot be used to enforce an illegitimate demand. Option 3 is partially relevant since fresh consideration is necessary for a variation of a contract, but the primary focus here is the illegitimacy of the pressure, not just the absence of consideration. Option 4 is incorrect because there is no evidence that The Grinch made false statements; the issue lies in the pressure he exerted, not misrepresentation. Option 5 is incorrect because frustration applies to situations where an unforeseen event makes performance of the contract impossible or radically different, which is not the case here. Thus, the principle of economic duress is the most relevant legal principle, and Santa may be able to recover the £5,000 if he can demonstrate that The Grinch’s actions amounted to illegitimate pressure.
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