“…theories of natural law meant that individuals had inalienable rights to own property, and therefore make their own arrangements to deal with that property, and hence to make contracts for themselves. The philosophy of laissez faire for its part was understood to mean that the state, and thus the law, should interfere with people as little as possible.” Atiyah’s An introduction to the Law of Contract, Smith, S. (2006)

Is this strictly still the case today, in respect of the way English law enforces contracts?

Question 1 – Discharge of Contract

Ali and some friends decided to visit London for the evening to celebrate a friend’s (Abu) birthday. As a surprise Ali purchased tickets to go and watch the opening night of The Proms. To get to the Royal Albert Hall, Ali also booked a limousine with ‘Flying Cars Ltd’. The price was £250 for a return journey. To secure the booking Ali paid a deposit of £150 with the remaining balance due at the end of the return journey to their hotel.

Unfortunately, 3 hours before the concert was due to start it was cancelled due to a large number of the symphony orchestra falling ill with a vomiting bug. Therefore, Ali and his friends did not use the limousine. ‘Flying Cars Ltd’ have since written to Ali asking for the remaining £100 that is owed. They were unable to hire out the limousine to anyone else at such short notice.

Ali also hired a room at the expensive ‘Arabian Nights’ restaurant in central London for the same evening to continue the birthday celebrations. Ali agreed to pay £300 for the table and a three course meal for six people. He paid a £100 deposit with the balance due upon arrival. However, due to the cancellation of the concert and the fact that Abu was feeling unwell, Ali telephoned the restaurant to explain that they would not be attending.

Jafar, the manager of ‘Arabian Nights’ telephoned Ali and angrily explained that they had incurred additional expenses of £100 on the wasted food that they ordered in anticipation for the dinner party. Jafar, has requested Ali pay the balance of £200 and the additional £100.

Advise Ali as to his legal obligations in relation to both the limousine and the restaurant, with a consideration of possible remedies.

Question 2 – Term & Condition & Exclusion Clauses

‘Games R Us’ are a leading console game seller. They sell an array of games for all ages.

Woody wanted to purchase a new PS4 game for his son’s (Andy) 10^th birthday. He browsed through the selection of PS4 games but was not sure what to buy. Whilst in ‘Games R Us’ Woody spoke to Sid who was a sales assistant. He showed him a number of games and recommended two; ‘Toy Story: the battle begins’ and ‘Road Rage’. Sid assured me that both games are compatible for the PS4 and are suitable for his son Andy.

The sales assistant also told Woody that if he purchased any two games today he could have them for £60 instead of £40 each. Upon Sid’s advice Woody immediately purchased the two games for £60 and was handed a receipt.

On the back of the receipt there was some small writing which read,

“Games R Us excludes all liability for mistaken purchases and no employee of has the authority to make any representations on its behalf in connection with any goods or services”

When Andy tried to play ‘Toy Story: the battle begins’ the PS4 console would not play the disk once inserted. He then began to play ‘Road Rage’; however, it became apparent that this was not appropriate for a 10 year old, due to adult content of driving people off the road around the track. He was very upset as it spoilt his birthday.

Woody returned to ‘Games R Us’ the following day and spoke to the Manager, Buzz. He explained that ‘Toy Story: the battle begins’ game was for PS3 consoles only and could not be played on the PS4 and ‘Road Rage’ was labelled as a certified 18 and clearly inappropriate for a 10 year old.

Advise Woody as to his rights and, in particular, any specific remedies to which he may be entitled.

Question 3 – Promissory Estoppel

Elsa Arendelle is the owner of ‘Frozen Funds’. They provide short term loans to people in need. Elsa sends a letter to Hans Southern who is a debtor of ‘Frozen Funds’. She requests that he repays the £2,000 that is still outstanding. Hans’s replies advising that he is short of funds and cannot pay the full amount. He asks if he can pay £1,300 in full payment of the debt and forget the rest. Secure in her knowledge of the rule in Foakes v Beer, Elsa agrees. Hans duly pays the £1,300.

Later that day, Elsa receives an email from Kristoff Troll who is disputing an alleged debt to ‘Frozen Funds’ of £12,000. Kristoff insists that all he owes is £8,000. He states that he will send a cheque made payable to Elsa Arendelle for this amount. A cheque for £8,000 arrives two days later with an accompanying letter that reads that this is in full payment of the debt.

Before accepting the cheque, Elsa consults her financial records. From her calculations Kristoff does owe £12,000 and not £8,000.

Finally, Elsa telephones Mr Weselton. He owes ‘Frozen Funds’ £5,000 which he borrowed to try and keep his freight business from folding. He has been unsuccessful; Mr Weselton replies that he is going to file for bankruptcy and that any claim will have to be made to the insolvency practitioner.

Elsa considers her chances of successfully recovering the full £5,000 and offers Mr Weselton the opportunity to pay a reduced amount of £3,000 in full satisfaction of the debt. Elsa awaits reply for 7 working days, as she does not hear from Mr Weselton she makes an application to the insolvency practitioner but she is unsure what to claim, £5,000 or £3,000.

Advise Elsa with regard to the principles of promissory estoppel and any remedies that she may be entitled to recover.

Each section of the assignment carries EQUAL WEIGHT.  Each part will form 50% of your overall mark.  It is therefore essential that students fully complete the assessment.

• The word limit is 4,000 words. Students should, therefore, write 2,000 words each on Part A and Part B ONLY.

• You should write no more than 4000 words. Excessive length will be penalised. Footnotes and bibliography will not be included in the word count unless it is apparent that you are including text in footnotes as a means of artificially disguising excessive length

• You must include a word count

• You must keep also copy of your work.

• The penalties for exceeding the word limit are as follows:

–       There will be no penalty for exceeding the word limit by no more than 10%.

–       Students who exceed the word limit by more than 10% will have their mark reduced by 10 percentage points.

It is essential to submit your work in word-processed form.   You should check your work very carefully for spelling, punctuation and grammar.   All work will be moderated.

Argument should be appropriately referenced and your work should include a full bibliography of texts, journals etc. referred to in your work. Your bibliography should state author, publisher and year of publication.

All assignments are to be submitted electronically via moodle. (please see guidance on e-submission in module guide and moodle page for guidance)

Please note that all Undergraduate Full Time student coursework has to be submitted by 12.00 NOON

The normal rules on extensions apply (see your Student Handbook.)

Taylor & Taylor Contract Law Directions Chs 1, 4, 5-7, 9-12

Richards Law of Contract Ch 1, 3, 7 – 9, 11, 13 – 16

Furmston M, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract Chs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-13,18-21

Other useful text books

Treitel G, Law of Contract

Beale H, Bishop W and Furmston M, Contract Cases and Materials

Poole J, Textbook on Contract Law Chs

Chen-Wishart M Contract Law Chs

Burrows A, A Casebook on Contract

Atiyah, P.S, An introduction to the Law of Contract Ch 1

You are reminded of the University’s Disciplinary Procedures which refer to Cheating, details of which may be found in the Student Complaints, Appeals and Conduct web page: https//icity.bcu.ac.uk/student-services/complaints-and-appeals/Disciplinary/Students-FAQs

Except where the assessment (not preparation) of an assignment is group-based, the final piece of work that is submitted must be your own work.  Close similarity between assignments is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. It is not advisable to show your work, completed or otherwise, to your colleagues, nor to share or exchange disks.

In addition, please note the following (approved by the University’s Senate):

You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used.  Work that is discovered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under the University’s Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academic credits.

If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate with your colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the sources you have used, you should first of all consult module documentation and, if still unclear, your module tutor.

Intended Learning Outcomes

On completion of this assessment you should demonstrate that the following module learning outcomes:

1.        Demonstrate knowledge of the substantive law of contract, including its context within the law of obligations, and some awareness of the historical, political and economic contexts within which it operates.

2.        Demonstrate the ability to solve practical problems through the application of legal principles to factual situations.

3.        Demonstrate basic skills of critical analysis and application of doctrine and principles of the law of contract in the context of theoretical and practical questions.

4.        Demonstrate the ability to make proper use of the English language in writing in relation to legal issues.

·         The appropriate essay form for your answer

·         A clear understanding of what the question is asking you to do and close attention to the requirements of the question

·         Appropriate research in preparation for your answer

·         Proper referencing and a full bibliography (the latter should be on a separate but attached sheet)

·         The proficient use of legal and other information and materials

·         A structured discussion of the relevant issues

·         Skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation of relevant legal rules, doctrine, policy, principles and concepts

·         An effective and precise use of written English.

In particular,

A first-class answer is likely to:

Ø  Be coherent, well-expressed and well-structured

Ø  Be free of substantial error

Ø  Demonstrate a high level of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation and show comparative and analytical discussion

Ø  Display a considerable degree of creative thought

Ø  Demonstrate wide research

Ø  Display an excellent standard of presentation

An upper second class answer is likely to:

Ø  Be clear and well-planned, with a logical structure

Ø  Be free of substantial error

Ø  Show a strong grasp of principles and arguments, and the ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate material

Ø  Show accurate and effective use of materials

Ø  Be analytical and critical in its approach

Ø  Be fluently and properly expressed

A lower second class answer is likely to:

Ø  Be a very competent piece of work, largely free of error

Ø  Demonstrate a good grasp of principle and argument

Ø  Demonstrate an attempt at critical analysis

Ø  Use reference materials appropriately

Ø  Be presented well

A third class answer is likely to:

Ø  Be competent and largely descriptive, and contain some errors and/or omissions

Ø  Show less evidence of research

Ø  Be a basic account of the issues

Ø  Contain a limited attempt at critical analysis

Ø  Show that little effort has been put into structure and/or presentation

An answer which does not achieve the requirements of a third class answer is likely to fail.

Use this Checklist to “assess” yourself:

·         Do I understand the issues raised by the question?

·         Have I planned my answer so that the final result is logical and makes sense?

·         Have I introduced the issues properly?

·         Is all the material relevant?

·         Are my arguments clear?

·         Does the reasoning develop as the answer progresses?

·         Have I tried to take to critical approach to the material I am using?

·         Have I balanced descriptive material with analysis and argument?

·         Is the answer repetitive?

·         Have I written a proper conclusion which draws the threads of my answer together?

·         Have I acknowledged all sources?

·         Have I included a full bibliography?

·         Have I met the word limit?

·         Have I checked spelling, punctuation and grammar?