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 ( 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.

Q1 (a) Bearing in mind the rules governing the arrest, detention and treatment of suspects, explain whether the police have acted lawfully in the above events and how the rules are intended to safeguard Wayne’s civil liberties. Q2 (a) Explain what claim(s) Janice may be able to make against House of Wonder Ltd, and briefly outline the principles on which any damages would be awarded if she were successful. (COURSE CODE: W200 – TMA 04 – The Right to Personal Liberty: The Law of Contract and Tort – FULL CASE STUDY SCENARIOS AVAILABLE IN DOWNLOADABLE ESSAY)

Nick is a supplier of eco home pods: mobile units providing accommodation, manufactured entirely from sustainable and renewable sources. The wood used in his designs is locally sourced cedar and is decorated with plant-based paints and varnishes. Tony sells wood for floors and cladding. Nick in his discussions with Tony explains how the whole of his business depends on his reputation as an ethical builder and any deviation from his environmental policies would destroy his credibility in the eco home pod marketplace. Nick is therefore adamant that all wood is locally sourced and all varnishes and paints are plant rather than chemical based. Tony promises that this is not a problem and that he will be able to comply. Nick and Tony enter a written agreement which specifies that the contract will last five years, the delivery dates, amounts, price and wood type. The contract is silent as to sourcing and paint/varnish requirements. Three months into the contact, Nick discovers that when the locally sourced cedar is not available Tony has been making up the order with cedar sourced from Canada, but not charging any more for it. It also comes to light that all the wood finishes supplied by Tony use the same chemical-based varnishes and paints. Advise Nick, who wishes to terminate the contract and recover potential damages.

Contract Law Problem Question Alice wished to buy an automatic dishwasher for use in her small teashop in Whitstable. She visited the showroom of Nixons Ltd, an electrical goods shop. She bought a Washrite 666 dishwasher for £750, which came with free installation. Alice signed the three-page contract provided by Nixons without reading it. The machine was delivered the next day and installed in the kitchen. Alice was impressed with the quality of the service that Nixons had provided her, especially the speed of delivery and installation. She told her friend Parvi about this and Parvi, who needed a new washing machine and tumble dryer, decided to buy them from Nixons. At Nixons’ store, Parvi told the assistant that she needed machines that could cope with large loads of washing, as she had a big family, including her four sons who played football regularly. She ended up buying two machines, each of which said on the front and in their respective operating manuals ‘10kg load efficient’. Five weeks later, Alice’s dishwasher started to make a loud noise and water leaked from it, causing damage to the kitchen’s floor, which she found would need to be entirely replaced, at a cost of £2000. She reluctantly did this so the teashop could reopen as normal as soon as possible. Replacing the damaged floor required her to close the shop for two days, causing Alice to lose profits. Alice called a plumber to look at the dishwasher, who told her that he could not be exactly sure what the problem was – the machine had either not been properly installed or was missing an essential part. He said that it would cost Alice £200 for him to investigate the problem further by looking in the machine itself, and up to £500 to fix it. Alice returned to Nixons to ask them to pay for the damage to her floor, to compensate her for the profits she would lose, and to give her either the cost of having the machine fixed or a full refund for the machine so that she could buy a new one from elsewhere. She was told by the manager that paying the full cost of the replacement floor was not possible, nor a full refund for the machine available, nor compensation for her lost profits, because of the following terms of the contract: “Clause 38: In the event of a machine or its installation being faulty, Nixons will provide a replacement product or service only. This clause will be invalidated if the customer has attempted to (or has employed someone outside of Nixons to) fix the item in question.” Clause 39: Nixons will only pay damages of up to £200 for property damage caused by failure of its goods. Clause 40: Nixons is not liable for any other loss or damage (including indirect or consequential loss, financial loss, loss of profits or loss of use) arising from the contract or from the goods or their use, even if we are negligent. Parvi had no problems with her washing machine, but found that after three weeks of regular use, the tumble drier took far longer to dry her washing than she expected and regularly overheated when loads above 8kg were in it, causing it to cut out until it had cooled enough to restart. An electrician who she called to look at the machine could not identify the problem. She returned to Nixons and asked them to replace the tumble drier with an equivalent model of the same value. However, the manager refused to do so, pointing to clause 38, because the back of the tumble drier had been taken off and the heating elements inspected by the electrician. On her way out of the store, Parvi noticed a large sign on the wall that stated in bold print ‘all contracts entered into are subject to Nixons’ terms and conditions of business. Customers should be asked to sign a set of these terms at every transaction*.’ Wondering what the asterisk was for, Parvi went closer to the sign and saw, in small writing near the bottom ‘*This does not affect your statutory rights’. Parvi had not been asked to sign the contract. Advise Alice and Parvi.