Case study – Siddique Spice Ltd (“SS”) regularly create and produce ready-made indian meals for Tesbury’s Supermarkets PLC for sale in their stores. For the last 10 years SS and Tesbury’s have had regular dealings and SS have created and produced between 4 – 8 different dishes per year for SS. Each year, Tesbury’s has given SS an outline menu in January. SS then submits recipes and menus which Tesbury’s consider along with menus from other ready meal producers. Tesbury’s then selects the new meals it wishes to promote and sell and places orders with SS. Orders are normally placed 3 weeks in advance at prices and quantities agreed from time to time. There is no written contract in place although 70% of SS’s business worth £500,000 per year comes from Tesbury’s with whom they have a very close working relationship. SS have also adapted their business practices to fit in with Tesbury’s. Despite the success of SS’s range of ready meals, Tesbury’s have decided not to sell SS’s products anymore. On 1st October, Tesbury informed SS that they would not be placing any more orders with SS with immediate effect. This will have a devastating effect on SS’s business and SS say Tesbury’s are not entitled to end their longstanding relationship with SS without reasonable notice as they say there is a contract for the production and supply of a reasonable number of meals per year at reasonable prices. SS claim they are entitled to compensation for breach of contract. They also say that the conduct of Tesbury’s has led them to believe that the relationship could not be terminated without reasonable notice and, even if there is no contract, Tesbury’s cannot deny the longer term relationship and that they are entitled to compensation. Tesbury’s had deliberately avoided entering any long term commitments to allow them as much flexibility as possible given the fast changing nature of the ready meals market. Advise Tesbury’s as to whether or not SS can claim there is any binding obligation between them either in contract or as the result of estoppel. (30%)

HC Publishing Ltd (“HC”) is a book publisher and wholesaler. They recently put an advert in the national press stating, “Buy a copy of the new book by the famous chef, Marco Sowhite “ Cook to Perfection”“ and if you write a 500 word review of the book and send a copy of it to reach us before 30 September, we will give you a voucher for a free meal in Marco’s top class restaurant.” The book was very popular and HC was inundated with reviews and claims for vouchers. As a result, HC put a notice on their website and notices in the book stores selling the book on 25th September saying, “No more reviews of “Cook to Perfection” required. No money will be paid for any reviews received after 25th September.” Joseph saw the advert, bought the book and faxed his review to HC on 25th September at 3.30pm. Unfortunately, the fax machine was out of paper and his review was not seen by HC until 27th September. Anton is a freelance cookery writer and food critic. He had bought a copy of the book and sent in a 500 word review of the book by email on 23rd September not having seen the advert. Anton’s friend later tells him about the advert and the voucher for the reviews on 24th September. On 1st October, Anton enters into an employment contract with HC as cookery editor. After he has been there for 3 weeks he reminds them about his review and HC promise to pay him an additional payment of £75 on top of his salary for the review he has written. Jamil saw the advert, bought the book and sent in a review by post on 20th September. His letter never arrived. Sobia saw the advert, bought the book and had written 400 words of her review by 25th September and emailed her 500 word review to HC on 29th September. She did not see the notice put on the website or in the stores by HC on 25th September. Robin saw the advert and bought the book intending to write a review. On 25th September his friend who works for HC told him about the notice and that no more reviews were required. Robin quickly wrote his review and hand delivered it to HC that day. Advise HC as to whether or not they are contractually bound to give the vouchers to Joseph, Anton, Jamil, Sobia and Robin or the sum of £75 to Anton.

Albert and Vicky liked to experiment sexually, so Vicky acquired a bondage kit that they could use at home. Albert put on a leather mask and, at his suggestion, Vicky tied his feet together tightly with a rope, causing him pain. He then helped her to suspend him upside down from the upstairs banister rail. Vicky then heard what sounded like a car crash in the street outside. Leaving Albert swinging, she ran out to see if she could help. When she returned to telephone for an ambulance, she found that Albert had had an attack of previously undiagnosed asthma and had suffocated. Advise Vicky about her possible liability for homicide.

ASE STUDY:The Northwood council has run an adventure for young adolescent for many years. The centre includes a go-kart racetrack. About a year ago several house were built adjacent to the centre and the residents of these houses now complain of the noise from the race track. One resident George claims that the noise is particularly troublesome having worked in a noisy environment for many years. Advise the residence, including George of any remedies available to them.