Monday 17 February 2025
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! Get your SQE questions answered live! Click here and tap the notification button in anticipation of our next session on 19 February.
Question: Emma is walking through a shopping centre when she slips on a large puddle of water that had leaked from a faulty air conditioning unit. The puddle had been there for over an hour, but no warning signs were placed near it, and staff had not taken any steps to clean it up. Emma suffers a fractured wrist and wants to sue the shopping centre’s management company.
She argues that the centre owed her a duty of care as a visitor and that their failure to address the hazard caused her injury. The centre’s management denies liability, claiming they were unaware of the leak and cannot be held responsible.
Which of the following factors will be most relevant in determining whether the shopping centre’s management company owed Emma a duty of care and breached it?
1. Whether the shopping centre took reasonable steps to prevent harm to visitors.
2. Whether Emma was wearing suitable footwear at the time of the accident.
3. Whether the centre management intended for Emma to suffer harm.
4. Whether Emma’s injury was severe enough to justify a claim.
5. Whether the air conditioning unit was installed by a third-party contractor.
Resource: Learn more about the law of tort by watching this video. Pick up a copy of our free study planner here.
Discounts: 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 code “IOANNIS” to get 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor Law Drills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
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 all new videos. Also, you get access to a members’-only FB group where we can communicate directly.
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: Emma is looking to purchase a second-hand commercial oven for her bakery. She visits a catering equipment supplier, BakeTech Ltd., where the salesperson tells her that the oven is “in perfect working condition” and “has only been lightly used.” Based on these assurances, Emma purchases the oven for £8,000. After installing the oven, Emma discovers that it frequently overheats and shuts down. A technician later informs her that the oven is five years old, had been previously used in an industrial kitchen, and had significant pre-existing mechanical faults. Emma is frustrated and wants to take legal action against BakeTech Ltd.
Under English contract law, which of the following best describes the legal nature of the salesperson’s statements, and what remedy is available to Emma?
- Fraudulent misrepresentation – Emma can claim damages and rescind the contract because BakeTech Ltd. knowingly made false statements to induce her into the purchase.
- Negligent misrepresentation – Emma can claim damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 if BakeTech Ltd. failed to take reasonable care in verifying the oven’s history before making the statement.
- Innocent misrepresentation – Emma can rescind the contract but cannot claim damages, as the salesperson believed the statement was true.
- Breach of contract – Emma can only sue for breach of contract because the salesperson’s statements were part of the contractual terms.
- No legal remedy – The statements were mere “sales puff” and do not form the basis for a misrepresentation claim.
Correct Answer: 2. Negligent misrepresentation – Emma can claim damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 if BakeTech Ltd. failed to take reasonable care in verifying the oven’s history before making the statement. Feedback: Misrepresentation occurs when a false statement of fact is made that induces someone to enter into a contract. The key issue in Emma’s case is determining whether the salesperson’s statement was fraudulent, negligent, or innocent: Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Option 1) applies when the false statement was made knowingly, recklessly, or without belief in its truth (Derry v Peek (1889)). There is no clear evidence that BakeTech Ltd. deliberately lied, so fraudulent misrepresentation is unlikely. Negligent Misrepresentation (Option 2) applies if a party makes a false statement without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true (Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.2(1)). If BakeTech Ltd. failed to check the oven’s age and condition before making assurances, Emma may claim both rescission and damages. Innocent Misrepresentation (Option 3) applies if the salesperson reasonably believed the statement was true. While this might allow Emma to rescind the contract, it does not entitle her to damages, making this option less favorable. Breach of Contract (Option 4) is incorrect because the salesperson’s statements were likely pre-contractual representations, not contractual terms. No Legal Remedy (“Sales Puff”) (Option 5) is incorrect because stating the oven was in “perfect working condition” and “lightly used for one year” are statements of fact, not mere advertising exaggerations. Thus, Emma is most likely to succeed with a claim for negligent misrepresentation, allowing her to seek rescission and damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
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