Monday 24 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 5 March.
Question: Emma purchases a new laptop from TechWorld Ltd. for £1,200. After just three weeks of normal use, the laptop stops working completely. Emma contacts TechWorld Ltd. and asks for a refund, but the store refuses, stating that she must contact the manufacturer for repairs instead. Emma is unsure about her rights and wants to know whether she is entitled to a refund, replacement, or repair. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, what are Emma’s rights when a product becomes faulty within a short period after purchase?
1. Emma is entitled to a full refund because the laptop developed a fault within 30 days of purchase.
2. Emma must accept a repair or replacement first, as refunds are only available if the product cannot be fixed.
3. TechWorld Ltd. can refuse a refund because only the manufacturer is responsible for dealing with product defects.
4. Emma has no automatic rights since the laptop was in working condition when she bought it, and faults can happen over time.
5. Emma is only entitled to a partial refund, as retailers are not required to provide full refunds after a product has been used.
Resource: Learn more about the CRA ‘15 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 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.
Question:
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.
Correct Answer: 1. Whether the shopping centre took reasonable steps to prevent harm to visitors. Feedback: Under the law of negligence, the duty of care requires businesses and property owners to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors. For general situations (where a duty is not implied by law) the relevant test is found in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990], which requires: Foreseeability of harm – Would a reasonable person foresee that a wet floor in a public area could cause injury? Yes. Proximity – Was Emma a lawful visitor to whom the mall owed a duty of care? Yes, as a customer. Fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability – Was the mall’s failure to clean or warn about the hazard unreasonable? Yes, if they had enough time to address it.
Here however we have a statutory duty. Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, businesses must take reasonable care to keep visitors safe. A puddle left for over an hour without warning signs suggests a breach of this duty, making the mall potentially liable for negligence. Why the Other Options Are Incorrect: Option 2 is incorrect because Emma’s footwear is only relevant to contributory negligence (whether she contributed to her injury), not whether the mall breached its duty. Option 3 is incorrect because negligence does not require intent—only a failure to take reasonable care. Option 4 is incorrect because any injury caused by negligence can justify a claim, not just severe ones. Option 5 is incorrect because businesses are still responsible for maintaining safe premises, even if third-party contractors installed equipment. They must inspect and address risks, regardless of who installed the faulty unit. Thus, the key issue is foreseeability and whether the shopping centre took reasonable steps to prevent harm, making 1 the correct answer.
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