Monday 9 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: TechSmart Ltd. operates a computer repair business. One of its technicians, Alex, is employed full-time and works at client homes to carry out repairs. While attending a customer’s home to fix a laptop, Alex intentionally accesses private photos stored on the customer’s device and uploads them to a personal cloud account. The customer, Ms Khan, sues TechSmart Ltd. for breach of privacy and emotional distress. TechSmart Ltd. argues that it should not be liable for Alex’s actions, as he acted outside his job duties and in direct violation of company policy. Which of the following best explains whether TechSmart Ltd. may be held liable for Alex’s actions?
A. TechSmart Ltd. will not be liable because Alex acted for his own personal gratification and outside the scope of employment.
B. TechSmart Ltd. will only be liable if Ms Khan can prove the company gave Alex express instructions to access her private files.
C. TechSmart Ltd. may be vicariously liable if there is a close connection between Alex’s employment and the wrongful act, even if Alex acted deliberately.
D. TechSmart Ltd. is automatically liable for all actions of its employees during working hours.
E. TechSmart Ltd. is not liable because Alex’s actions were criminal in nature, which breaks the chain of employment liability.
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: 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.
Correct Answer: 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. The general rule for incorporation of contractual terms by notice is that terms must be brought to the party’s attention before or at the time the contract is formed.
In this scenario:
- The contract was formed at the time of the online booking, when Oliver agreed to the hotel’s terms and conditions provided online.
- The exclusion clause was not part of those terms and was only introduced after the contract was formed, when Oliver arrived at the hotel and signed the registration form.
- L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] applies where the signed document constitutes the contract itself, but here the contract was already concluded before the signing.
This principle was emphasised in cases like Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949], where the court held that terms introduced after contract formation cannot be incorporated.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
- Option A is incorrect because signature only incorporates terms if the signed document itself constitutes the contract. Here, the contract was formed online.
- Option B is incorrect because exclusion clauses do require notice to be incorporated into consumer contracts; they are not automatically effective.
- Option C is incorrect because Oliver was not aware of the clause before booking; incorporation depends on reasonable notice, not actual awareness.
- Option E is incorrect because exclusion clauses in hotel contracts are not automatically void but must comply with incorporation rules and consumer protection legislation.
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