Monday 12 May 2025
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.
Question: Liam and Aisha run a small graphic design studio in London under the name CreativeSpark. They do not have a written partnership agreement but share profits equally, jointly make decisions, and present themselves to clients as co-owners of the business. One day, Aisha enters into a contract with a printing company on behalf of CreativeSpark, agreeing to purchase services worth £8,000. Liam was unaware of the contract and objects to the expense, stating that he never authorised the transaction.
The printing company now seeks payment from CreativeSpark and threatens legal action. Liam argues that he shouldn’t be liable because he didn’t personally approve the deal.
Under the Partnership Act 1890, which of the following statements best reflects Liam’s legal position in relation to the contract entered into by Aisha?
A. Liam is not liable because Aisha acted without his consent, and partners are only bound by transactions approved by all partners.
B. Liam is liable because partners are jointly liable for business obligations entered into in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business.
C. Liam is not liable because the absence of a written partnership agreement prevents the creation of any enforceable legal obligations.
D. Liam is liable only if Aisha expressly stated that she had his authority before entering into the contract.
E. Liam is not liable because Aisha acted beyond her authority and exceeded the partnership’s borrowing limit.
Resource: Learn more about partnerships 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: Sophie is looking to buy a second-hand car from Speedy Motors Ltd. The salesperson tells her, “This car has never been in an accident and is in excellent condition.” Relying on this statement, Sophie purchases the car for £12,000. Two weeks later, Sophie discovers that the car was previously involved in a major accident and had undergone substantial repairs, which significantly reduce its market value. Sophie wants to know if she can bring a claim against Speedy Motors Ltd. Which of the following best describes the legal principles Sophie must establish to succeed in a claim?
A. Sophie must show that Speedy Motors intentionally lied to her and that she has suffered emotional distress as a result.
B. Sophie must prove that Speedy Motors made a false statement of fact, which induced her to enter into the contract, regardless of whether Speedy Motors knew it was false.
C. Sophie can only claim redress if the false statement was included in the written sale contract, not if it was made verbally.
D. Sophie can only claim if she relied on her own independent inspection of the car and found the statement to be false.
E. Sophie has no claim because statements made by salespeople are always treated as mere sales talk or opinions.
Correct Answer: B. Sophie must prove that Speedy Motors made a false statement of fact, which induced her to enter into the contract, regardless of whether Speedy Motors knew it was false. To establish a claim for misrepresentation, Sophie must prove:
- False statement of fact:
- The seller made a statement that was false at the time it was made (here, that the car had never been in an accident).
- Inducement:
- The false statement induced Sophie to enter the contract; in other words, it was material to her decision to purchase the car.
- Reliance:
- Sophie relied on the statement when making her decision.
It is not necessary that Speedy Motors knew the statement was false for there to be a claim; misrepresentation can be innocent, negligent, or fraudulent.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
- Option A is incorrect because a misrepresentation claim does not require proving an intentional lie or emotional distress.
- Option C is incorrect because misrepresentations can be oral, written, or even by conduct—they do not have to be written in the contract.
- Option D is incorrect because if Sophie relied on the salesperson’s statement rather than her own inspection, she can still claim.
- Option E is incorrect because not all sales talk is considered mere “puffery”; a specific factual statement about the accident history can amount to a statement of fact, not mere opinion.
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