Monday 23 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.
Exclusive Subscriber Discounts:
1) Use code “ioannis50” to benefit from a 7 day free trial and an additional 50% off for 3 months on SQE MCQ platform Kinnu https://kinnu.xyz/law/sqe
2) 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/
3) Use code “IOANNIS” to get 15% off any of the Pro Plans of AI tutor LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
This Week’s Question:
Imran writes a letter to his sister stating: “I hope you will look after my vintage book collection. I’d like you to keep some of the more valuable ones for your children and maybe give the rest to our cousin Ali if you think he’d appreciate them. I know you’ll do the right thing.” Imran passes away shortly after. A dispute arises over whether this letter creates a valid trust over the book collection. His sister claims she is free to deal with the books as she wishes, while Ali argues a trust was created in his favour.
Which of the following best explains the likely legal position under the law of trusts in England and Wales?
A. A valid trust exists because Imran made his intentions clear and identified the subject matter and beneficiaries.
B. No trust exists because Imran failed to demonstrate certainty of intention to create a trust.
C. A valid trust exists in favour of the sister’s children only, as they were named first.
D. No trust exists because the property (the books) was not clearly identified as being part of the trust.
E. A resulting trust arises automatically in favour of Ali because he was named as a potential recipient.
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.
NEW Podcast! Wish there was a decent podcast where people were talking about key FLK topics? Your wish has come true! I am launching “Functioning Law” the only podcast designed to help you navigate SQE FLK. Access all episodes here.
Last Week’s Question:
Clara mistakenly transfers £5,000 to the bank account of Morgan, believing it to be the correct account for her wedding caterer (who had a similar business name). Morgan is a self-employed baker who receives the funds, realises it was likely a mistake, but chooses to keep the money and spend it on personal expenses. Clara contacts Morgan to request the money back. Morgan refuses, arguing that there was no contract between them and that Clara’s mistake is not her responsibility.
On what legal basis could Clara bring a successful claim against Morgan to recover the £5,000?
A. Breach of contract, because Morgan accepted the payment without objection.
B. Fraud, because Morgan knew the money wasn’t hers and spent it dishonestly.
C. Breach of fiduciary duty, as Morgan had a duty to safeguard Clara’s funds.
D. Unjust enrichment, because Morgan received a benefit at Clara’s expense without legal justification.
E. Tort of conversion, because Morgan interfered with Clara’s property rights.
✅ Correct Answer: D. Unjust enrichment, because Morgan received a benefit at Clara’s expense without legal justification. Unjust enrichment is a restitutionary cause of action that arises where a person is enriched at another’s expense in circumstances where it would be unjust for them to retain the benefit.
To succeed, Clara must show four elements: Morgan has been enriched – she received and spent the £5,000; At Clara’s expense – Clara mistakenly transferred her own money; Unjust – the enrichment resulted from a mistaken payment, which is a recognised ground of unjustness; No applicable defence – Morgan cannot argue that she had a legal right to the money or changed her position in good faith in a way that would make restitution inequitable. This claim does not require a contract or wrongdoing—it is a restitutionary claim based on fairness and the reversal of unjust benefits.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A (Breach of contract) is incorrect: There is no contract between Clara and Morgan, so this legal route is unavailable.
B (Fraud) is incorrect: Fraud requires deliberate deceit at the time of the transaction, which is not the basis of Clara’s transfer. While Morgan’s conduct may be morally questionable, it does not automatically constitute fraud.
C (Fiduciary duty) is incorrect: No fiduciary relationship exists between Clara and Morgan—Morgan was a stranger to Clara.
E (Conversion) is incorrect: This tort applies to wrongful interference with chattels or tangible property, not money once transferred into a bank account.
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