Monday 28 July 2025
Your weekly SQE Prep Quiz has arrived
Dear Subscriber,
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 “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 LawDrills at https://www.lawdrills.com/
This Week’s Question:
A woman offers to sell a rare violin to a man for £15,000. The next day, the man replies, “I’ll buy it for £13,000.” She does not respond. Two days later, the man sends another message saying, “I accept your original offer of £15,000.” By that time, the woman has already sold the violin to someone else for £16,000. The man brings a claim for breach of contract. Which of the following best explains the legal position?
A. There is a binding contract because the man eventually accepted the original offer in full.
B. There is a binding contract because the woman did not withdraw her offer in writing.
C. No contract exists because the man’s counter-offer terminated the original offer.
D. No contract exists because the violin was sold for a higher price to someone else.
E. A contract exists if the original offer was open for at least seven days.
Dig Deeper: Learn more about contract law, by watching this video (incudes updates for 2025).
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:
A man pushes another during an argument. The other person falls, hits their head on a sharp surface, and dies. The man claims he only meant to push, not to cause serious harm. The prosecution charges him with unlawful act manslaughter. The defence argues that the death was an accident.
What must the prosecution prove to establish unlawful act manslaughter in this case?
A. That the man foresaw the death and intended to cause serious injury.
B. That the man intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
C. That the man committed an unlawful act that was dangerous and caused the death.
D. That the man was reckless as to whether death or serious harm would occur.
E. That the man breached a duty of care owed to the other person.
✅ Correct Answer: C. That the man committed an unlawful act that was dangerous and caused the death.
Feedback:
For unlawful act manslaughter, the prosecution must show:
- A positive unlawful act (not an omission);
- That the act was objectively dangerous (per Church [1966]);
- That the act caused the death;
- And that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act (not for the death).
There is no need to prove intent to cause serious harm or foresee death.
- A and B describe the mens rea for murder, not manslaughter.
- D relates to reckless manslaughter, a different offence.
- E applies to gross negligence manslaughter, which involves omissions and duty of care, not positive unlawful acts.
Thank you for subscribing and let me know how you are getting on in your preparation through our Facebook Group or *NEW* on Reddit! 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