Instructions to Candidates:
It is advisable to upload your answers well ahead of this deadline.
All answers must be included in the answer document that you upload onto Canvas.
In exceptional circumstances, if you do not have access to a computer, then you may hand write your answers and upload photographs.
Your answers must be your own independent work and should relate to knowledge gained during this module. Your answer document will be passed through anti-plagiarism software (Turnitin). Please see the University web site for details of the policy on plagiarism. Please note that you are required to cite the academic sources you use.
Answer any THREE questions.
All questions carry equal marks.
You should write no more than 750 words per question attempted and use OSCOLA referencing (guide on Canvas) but Harvard referencing will be accepted.
Question 1:
Outline and discuss with case law the five ways at common law that courts having been willing to pierce the corporate veil.
Question 2:
“The codification of directors duties found in the Companies Act 2006 ss.171 to 177, has simplified this area of law.”
With reference to the above statement, detail the duties owed by directors with appropriate case law.
Question 3:
On Tuesday Preeya purchases a new car and decides to sell her old one to make room on her drive. She decides to put an advertisement online to sell her 2002 Fiat Punto stating the price of £1200 and asking for people to phone her to discuss this.
On Wednesday Bill sees the advertisement and decides to make Preeya an offer. Bill calls her and says “I can offer you £800 for the car”, Preeya replies “I can take no less than £1000 for the car as it is in such good condition, my offer is open until Friday at 9am so you need to call me and let me know by then”. Bill agrees to do so after speaking to his husband later on.
On Thursday Bill decides that he does want to purchase the car and so sends a letter to Preeya stating that he accepts her offer of £1000 and will collect the car Friday evening.
By 10am Friday morning Preeya gets another offer for her car for the asking price of £1200, which she accepts, and they arrange to collect the car that afternoon. Bill, on his way to collect the car sees it parked on Morrisons’ carpark. When he approaches Lyndsey the new owner, she informs him that she had bought the car this morning.
Bill is very angry about this as he really wanted that car to help get his dogs out for their walk.
Advise Bill whether there is an enforceable contract between himself and Preeya.
Question 4:
“the relationship between the government and citizens, and between citizen and citizen, is governed by laws which are followed and applied. That is rule by law, but the rule of law requires more than that.”
Supreme Court, Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture 2013, paragraph 2, https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131015.pdf
Lord Neuberger expresses his feelings towards the English Legal System. In reference to his statement as well as judicial precedent and statutory interpretation rules; discuss whether judges can make law.
Question 5:
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is inadequate when defining who is an employee in relation to employment protection.
Discuss with case law the common law tests for employment.
Question 6:
Emily is driving to a restaurant she has never been to before to have her first date with Brad who she met via an on-line dating site. She is both apprehensive and excited and is using her satnav for directions to the restaurant.
Due to the situation, Emily is somewhat distracted and is travelling at 15mph above the legal limit. Sukhwinder and Ben are on their way to a concert and are crossing the road – they use a pelican crossing which shows that they are permitted to cross. Due to her distraction Emily fails to notice in time the crossing and the red light showing to drivers.
Emily crashes her car into Sukhwinder and Ben. Ben suffers bruising and shock but Sukhwinder sustains a broken pelvis.
With reference to legal authorities discuss whether Sukhwinder and Ben could successfully sue Emily in negligence
