Search Results for: business law

Module code and title: LW4004 Legal Method & Skills Review the passage below and then correct the referencing and citations by using footnotes. You should also correct the formatting of quotations and include a bibliography. Note: You are not required to comment on the actual content of the following passage, which has been drafted to provide practice in footnote referencing, formatting quotations, and writing a bibliography correctly. Passage: Save for contracts to create of transfer interests in land, which are required to be in writing (as per the 1989 Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act, section 2 subsection 1), the traditional view is that there are only three requirements for a valid contract in English law; an agreement, an intention to create legal relations and consideration from both parties. In Currie v Misa (1875 LR10 Ex 153) Justice Lush stated at para. 162 “a valuable consideration in the sense of the law, may consist of either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” The doctrine of consideration is the embodiment of the idea that English Law will only enforce bargains, not mere promises that are given ‘for free’. Each party must ‘give’ or ‘provide’ something in return for the promise given otherwise there is no enforceable contract. As Ewan Mckendrick points out in Contract Law, Text Cases and Materials (Chapter 5 , p147) consideration is an important distinguishing feature between contract law in civil jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions. However, this clearly does not justify the doctrine and there are plenty who would question the place of the doctrine in the modern law. In an article entitled ‘Judicial reform of privity and consideration’ (Journal of Business Law, November 1986 , 466-473. Para. 466 & 467), Edward Jacobs offered two fundamental criticisms that are arguably still a problem today. First, the law as stated in textbooks and in some of the judgments in the area do not reflect how it would actually be applied in the courts. Secondly, even if this was not the case and the law was applied in accordance with the doctrinal theory, it would still not work satisfactorily. Ewan Mckendrick (as per the reference above) highlights 5 criticisms of the doctrine: (i) it narrows down too far the scope of promises that can be enforceable, (ii) it has become too technical, (iii) it has become divorced from commercial reality, (iv) it is difficult to reconcile with modern theoretical models of contract law and (v) that it is over-broad and its work could be done by more specific doctrines (such as duress). One example of the problem of the doctrine becoming too technical is in the area ‘Pre-existing duties’. Although the traditional view that an obligation already owed to someone cannot be good consideration (Stilk v Myrick (1809)) seems clear, subsequent cases have muddied the waters. Williams and Roffey [1991] is perhaps the best example of how the law has developed in an unsatisfactory, over complicated way. In Williams, Mr Williams was already under a contractual obligation to Roffey Bros. (Roffey) to carry out carpentry works as part of more general renovation works relating to several flats, but due to financial difficulties could not complete them. To ensure that they were completed on time (which was important to Roffey) Roffey agreed to pay an additional sum per flat on top of the original agreed price. Accordingly, Williams did not appear to be giving anything in return for this new promise by Roffey but still sought damages for money he said he was owed as a result of the agreement to pay an additional amount. As stated by Anne Street on the University of London International Programmes Undergraduate Laws Programme blog (http://laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/2014/12/29/consideration-part-2/ accessed on 15th September 2016), ‘any good law student given the facts of Williams v Roffey Bros would have made a reasonable conclusion that the claim by Mr Williams was doomed to failure’ . However (clearly to the surprise of those law students) Williams was found to have conferred a ‘practical’ benefit in agreeing to complete the contract on time, despite the fact that this was a pre-existing obligation. As a result the law has become unclear as to what will and what won’t be a ‘practical’ benefit for the purpose of valid consideration. In defence of the doctrine M Chen-Wishart justifies the requirement of consideration as a reaction to ‘our deep instinct for reciprocity; an instinct which enhances co-operation and division of labour, whilst preserving the social equilibrium…. By requiring the reciprocation to be explicit, the consideration doctrine keeps the state away from the private domain where external coercion would distort the practice of gift-giving and so destroy much which is valuable about it’ As long ago as 1937 that the Law Revision Committee suggested the doctrine of consideration should be significantly re-considered (6th Interim Report of the Law Revision Committee (statue of frauds and the doctrine of consideration), Cmnd. 5449 (1937) and despite the arguments of a few academics, to my mind the case for change is stronger now given more recent developments in the law and in commercial practices than it was in 1937. It is also clear from the non-binding treaty on the Principles of European Contract Law that the direction of travel in the commercial world outside of England and Wales is away from a requirement of consideration. For example, the treaty provides at Art. 2:101(2) provides that ‘a contract is concluded if: (a) the parties intend to be legally bound, and (b) they reach a sufficient agreement, without any further requirement.

henry

eTMA 06 Consider the criminal liability of Len, Gemma and Dwayne. W201 Law: the individual and the state Scenario Len is about to retire from running the family business, a café at a seaside resort. His children are not interested in carrying on the business so Len decides to put the café up for sale. He markets the café himself at a price of £80,000. Juliet has just finished a Business and Management degree and wants to buy the café. Len tells Ju-liet that the café has traded at a profit for the past 3 years. In fact, last year the café made a loss of £1,987 but Len is worried that Juliet will not buy the café if she knows the true facts about its profit-ability. Juliet asks to see the accounts and when Len tells her he cannot find them, she realises that Len is lying and decides not to proceed with buying the café. Whilst he waits for someone to buy the business, Len carries on working in the cafe. On a busy Sunday, he takes an order for Gemma and Dwayne who are on holiday from abroad. Gemma and Dwayne have run out of money but are very hungry. They went into Len’s café hoping that they could eat their meal then slip out without paying. Gemma and Dwayne order a full English breakfast each with drinks. After they have eaten, Len brings the bill to their table. He says “Just pay at the till when you’re ready.” Gemma has enjoyed her meal and is having second thoughts about their plan not to pay. She says to Dwayne “I think we should pay up – we can use our emergency money – we don’t want to end up in an English jail.” Dwayne tells Gemma that they will not be paying and runs out of the café. As she has no money, Gemma walks towards the door of the café to follow Dwayne but Len grabs her by the arm and says, “No-one leaves my café without paying. We’ll let the police deal with this”. Gemma manages to break free from Len and runs out of the café. When she meets up with Dwayne, Gemma shows him a large bruise on her arm where Len grabbed her. Dwayne tells Gemma that before he left the café, he dropped his wallet on the floor. They agree that Dwayne will have to go back to the café to look for the wallet but Dwayne says, “How can I do that without that guy remembering I ran off without paying?” Gemma replies “I don’t know, you’ll have to break in after he closes I suppose.” Dwayne and Gemma agree that Dwayne will go back to the café to look for the wallet. Gemma stays at their hotel but, before he leaves, she tells Dwayne “See if there is an open window you can climb through – please don’t break in unless you have to you’ll just make things worse – and what-ever you do, don’t hurt anyone.” Dwayne replies, “don’t be stupid, of course I won’t hurt anyone.” Reassured, Gemma waves goodbye to Dwayne. When Dwayne gets to the café he smashes a small pane of glass in the door so that he can reach his hand in to unlock the door. He puts his arm through the broken pane and unlocks the door. Dwayne goes into the café but cannot find his wallet. Just as he is preparing to give up the search and leave, Len walks into the café. He recognises Dwayne and shouts, “What are you doing here?” Dwayne grabs an ornamental sword which is hanging on the wall of the café and stabs Len in the arm. Dwayne drops the sword and runs off. Len’s arm is bleeding heavily after the attack. He goes to the accident and emergency department of the local hospital where his cut is treated and stitched with 5 stitches.

henry

LLB Contract Assessment Module Name —– LAW OF OBLIGATIONS Title——————PROBLEM QUESTION 2 2500 words Axl, a businessman, collects rock ‘n’ roll memorabilia. One of his most prized possessions is a scarf, used by Elvis Presley, in the 1960’s, to wipe the sweat from his face. Axl has had the scarf DNA tested, and has a certificate verifying that the sweat is indeed that of Elvis. Unfortunately, Axl’s business concerns are not doing so well, and he is desperate to borrow money to keep the cash flowing. He goes to several banks, but they tell him that, in the current climate, it is impossible to lend his company the money he is requesting. Axl is close to despair, and considers that his business is about to collapse. He visits his old friend, Slash, to drown his sorrows over a bottle of Jack Daniels. Slash tells Axl that he has always envied the ‘Elvis scarf’, and asks Axl whether he would now be prepared to sell it. Axl is reluctant, telling Slash that he loves it more than anything else in the world, and can’t imagine life without this most treasured possession. Slash says that, if he will sell the scarf to him, he will lend Axl’s business the money it needs to keep trading. At this point, Axl flies into a rage, saying, ‘I thought you were my friend, but you are just trying to take advantage of me. You are a real low-life backstabber – I can’t believe you would try to con the scarf from me in this way!’ He leaves. Next morning, Axl has a change of heart. He would still rather not sell the scarf, but his business really needs the loan. He contacts Slash and agrees to let him have the scarf in return for Slash lending money to the business. After a few months the loan turned Axl’s business around. Now that he is out of danger, Axl regrets selling the scarf. He meets with Slash, telling him, “You should give me that scarf back – you know you cheated me out of it and that I didn’t want to sell. You took advantage of my financial desperation!” Slash replies that that is a load of rubbish, and that they had a solid contract of sale. However, as a gesture of good will, Slash tells Axl that he is prepared to reduce the monthly loan repayments, paid by Axl’s business, by 10% for the next two years. Referring to estoppel and duress in your answer where relevant: a) Advise Axl regarding the Elvis scarf contract (50%). b) Would Slash’s promise be binding? (50%).

henry

LLB Land Law Case Study In 1988 Adam purchased shop premises (title to which was registered) from Bob and opened a news agents. The transfer contained a covenant by Adam that he and his successors in title would not sell, or permit to be sold, alcohol on the premises; this was to protect Bob who owned an off-licence half a mile away. Although the premises were transferred into Adam’s sole name, £5,000 of the purchase price was provided by his wife, Carol. No entry was made on the register in relation to the restrictive covenant or Carol’s interest. By 1999, Adam had acquired other business interests that kept him busy and from then on the shop was run by Carol alone. In September 2011, Adam sold the shop to Derek, who was a business acquaintance. Negotiations were carried out without the knowledge of Carol and the purchase was actually completed the day after Carol left for a fortnight’s stay with her daughter. The restrictive covenant was pointed out to Derek before the sale and in response to a question he assured Adam that he had no intention of selling alcohol and would therefore observe the covenant. This was a lie! Carol has recently returned from her holiday and claims a beneficial interest in the property. Bob is objecting to the sale of alcohol by Derek. Advise Derek. How, if at all, would your answer differ if – (a) Before selling to Derek, Adam had appointed his brother, Edward, as co-trustee; or (b) Adam had needed to sell extremely quickly for financial reasons and consequently the price paid by Derek had been substantially below the market value of the property?

henry

CASE STUDY 1: You have been newly appointed as a legal advisor in a firm of accountants. Mr. Atkinson, the senior member of the firm has asked for your assistance. He has asked you to write a report for one of his client, Mr. Conway who is uncertain as to some issues regarding the law of agency. You report should attempt to address the following issues and should be illustrated with relevant examples of case law. (1a) Explain the relationship between the parties involved in an agency. (1b) Identify the types of authority an agent may possess. (1c) The basis and importance of agency of necessity. CASE STUDY 2: Andrew, Barry and Catherine are going into partnership as designers. However as they are entering into a partnership agreement for the first, there are a number of issues that need clarifying and have thus asked for some guidance. You are a legal assistant and have been approached by your employer to write a letter, illustrated with case law, informing them of their legal position with regards the following queries. (2a) Changing the type of business carried on by the firm. (2b) Borrowing money on behalf of the firm without notifying the other partners. (2c) The position where one of the partners wants to introduce a new partner. (2d) The extent of liability if one of the partners decides to retire from the firm. (2e) Dissolving the firm.

henry

CASE STUDY 1: You have been newly appointed as a legal advisor in a firm of accountants. Mr. Atkinson, the senior member of the firm has asked for your assistance. He has asked you to write a report for one of his client, Mr. Conway who is uncertain as to some issues regarding the law of agency. You report should attempt to address the following issues and should be illustrated with relevant examples of case law. (1a) Explain the relationship between the parties involved in an agency. (1b) Identify the types of authority an agent may possess. (1c) The basis and importance of agency of necessity. CASE STUDY 2: Andrew, Barry and Catherine are going into partnership as designers. However as they are entering into a partnership agreement for the first, there are a number of issues that need clarifying and have thus asked for some guidance. You are a legal assistant and have been approached by your employer to write a letter, illustrated with case law, informing them of their legal position with regards the following queries. (2a) Changing the type of business carried on by the firm. (2b) Borrowing money on behalf of the firm without notifying the other partners. (2c) The position where one of the partners wants to introduce a new partner. (2d) The extent of liability if one of the partners decides to retire from the firm. (2e) Dissolving the firm.

henry