Monday 2 June 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.
Question: Oliver books a weekend stay at a luxury hotel online. When Oliver arrives at the hotel, he is asked to sign a registration form at reception. In small print on the form, there is a clause excluding the hotel’s liability for loss or damage to personal belongings. During his stay, Oliver’s expensive watch is stolen from his locked room. He brings a claim against the hotel, arguing that the exclusion clause is not part of the contract. Which of the following best explains whether the exclusion clause is incorporated into the contract?
A. The clause is incorporated because Oliver signed the registration form, even though he did not read it.
B. The clause is incorporated because exclusion clauses do not require prior notice in consumer contracts.
C. The clause is incorporated only if Oliver was aware of it before completing the online booking.
D. The clause is not incorporated because the contract was concluded online, and any terms not brought to Oliver’s attention before or during the online booking are not part of the contract.
E. The clause is unenforceable because all exclusion clauses for hotel property are automatically void under public policy.
Community: Join me live every Tuesday at 12.30pm London time between now and the SQE1 July sitting on YouTube to practice MCQs, chat about SQE prep and hang out with other candidates. Tomorrow’s link is 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/
Candidates keep asking me for notes, infographics and flowcharts: They are amazing study aids. I am launching a new series of 5′ video explainers of key #SQE #FLK topics that come with a pdf infographic. Videos initially visible to YouTube channel members, and free to the public in a few weeks. PDFs are available to download for channel members. Join for instant access.
Answer and feedback to last week’s question: Marcus owns a high-end catering business and enters into a contract with ChillTech Ltd. for the delivery of a specialist refrigeration unit to be installed before the launch of his new luxury venue. ChillTech Ltd. is aware that Marcus plans to open the venue on a specific date and that the refrigeration unit is essential for storing perishable ingredients for the launch event.
Due to a delay in delivery, the refrigeration unit arrives five days late, resulting in spoiled ingredients and Marcus having to cancel the launch event, losing £25,000 in profits and suffering reputational damage. Marcus sues ChillTech Ltd. for breach of contract and seeks to recover all his losses. Which of the following best reflects the legal principles that will apply to Marcus’s claim?
A. Marcus can recover all losses resulting from the breach, including reputational harm, regardless of what ChillTech Ltd. knew at the time of contracting.
B. Marcus can recover the full amount of lost profits and reputational damage, as all consequences of a breach are presumed recoverable.
C. Marcus may recover only losses that were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made, such as foreseeable lost profits.
D. Marcus can recover only the cost of the spoiled ingredients, as this is the only loss directly caused by the delay.
E. Marcus’s losses are too remote, as he should have made alternative arrangements and therefore bears the entire responsibility for the event’s cancellation.
Correct Answer: C. Marcus may recover only losses that were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made, such as foreseeable lost profits. The legal principles of causation and remoteness of loss in contract law are governed by the rules established in Hadley v Baxendale (1854). Under this rule, damages for breach of contract are recoverable if:
- The loss arises naturally from the breach (in the usual course of things), or
- The loss was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting as a probable result of the breach.
In this case:
- ChillTech Ltd. was aware of the specific launch date and the importance of the refrigeration unit to Marcus’s event.
- The lost profits from the event could be considered reasonably foreseeable, especially since ChillTech was aware of the potential consequences of delay.
- However, reputational damage may be more difficult to recover unless it was clearly contemplated by both parties and considered a probable consequence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
- Option A is incorrect: Not all losses are automatically recoverable—only those that are not too remote under the principles of Hadley v Baxendale.
- Option B is incorrect: Courts do not assume all losses are recoverable. They must be foreseeable and not too remote.
- Option D is too narrow: While the cost of spoiled ingredients is clearly recoverable, Marcus may also recover foreseeable lost profits if they were within the parties’ contemplation.
- Option E wrongly shifts all responsibility to Marcus without considering the foreseeability of loss and ChillTech’s knowledge of the event’s importance.
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