Which of the Following Statements are True with Respect to juries in a Crown Court trial: Business law Assignment, NUS, Singapore

Question 1

Which of the following statements are true with respect to juries in a Crown Court trial? Explain your answer.

i. The jury does not decide on the guilt or otherwise of the accused but will help support the trial judge in making a determination.

ii. The judge explains the relevant law to the jury and invites the jury to decide the case against the accused upon its facts.

iii. A judge can direct a jury to either convict or acquit the accused.

iv. Juries are not required to explain their reasons for the decision reached following their deliberations.

v. If a jury acquits the accused then an appeal cannot overturn this.

a. (i) and (iii) only.

b. (ii), (iii) and (iv) only

c. (i), (iv) and (v) only

d. (ii), (iv) and (v) only

Question 2

TMP Enterprises Ltd manufactures a product dubbed ‘miracle stick’. This is a plastic tube which, when snapped in two, releases a vapour for inhalation. In its television advertisement, the company claims that ‘miracle stick’ has the power to vaccinate against the Covid-19 virus. It is further stated that any customers who buy ‘miracle stick’ and follow the instructions for its use are guaranteed not to contract Coivd-19.

So confident are they that if anyone can show that they had correctly used their product and yet still caught Covid-19 they would pay them a reward of £10,000. The company is confident they will never have to make good on any such claims but have deposited £100,000 in a bank account ready to show their sincerity in the matter. Donald buys a ‘miracle stick’ on the strength of this televised advertisement. Despite rigidly following the instructions which came with the product, Donald still contracts Covid-19. He claims the £10,000 reward from TMP Enterprises Ltd. They refuse to pay. Donald sues them in contract. Which of the following arguments are not credible here? Explain your answer.

• The defendant’s advertisement constitutes a unilateral offer to the world at large.
• Donald has no claim because an offer cannot be made to the whole world but must be made to a specific person or group of persons.
• Donald has no claim because the claims in the defendant’s advertisement were mere ‘advertising puff’ and not meant to be taken seriously.
• Donald has a claim because he accepted the offer by his conduct and thereby made a contract with the defendant.
• Donald has an alternative claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 simply because the ‘miracle stick’ did not work as intended.

 

a. (ii), (iii) and (iv) only

b. (i) and (iv) only.

c. (ii), (iii) and (v) only.

d. (iv) and (v) only.

Question 3

Which of the following are applicable to a dispute whereby party A is the victim of misrepresentation by party B? Explain your answer.

• The injured party, A, can choose whether or not to repudiate the contract.
• The law would regard the contract between A and B as never having existed.
• Where goods have transferred from party A to party B under the contract, B may retain ownership of the goods if A chooses not to repudiate.
• Where goods have transferred from party A to party B under the contract, B must return the goods to A if A chooses not to repudiate.
• Where goods have transferred from A to B under the contract, and B has then transferred the goods to party C in good faith, C may retain ownership of the goods if A chooses to repudiate.

a. (i), (iii) and (v) only.

b. (ii) and (iv) only.

c. (i), (iii) and (iv) only.

d. (ii) and (v) only

Question 4

Jackson is employed by Sir Richard as head gardener for his estate. Jackson, who lives on the grounds of the estate, has worked there for seven years. His contracted hours of working include 8am to noon on Saturdays. Jackson and Sir Richard had a falling out and their working relationship became strained.

At around 9:30 am last Saturday Sir Richard asked Jackson to pot up some Nandina Rubra which would otherwise die if left unattended. Jackson told Sir Richard that he would not get that done by noon by which time he would be gone and that if Sir Richard did not like it then he could sack him. Two hours later Sir Richard entreated Jackson to be less difficult and to pot the plants, pointing out that it should only take half an hour or less.

Jackson replied that he really did not care about Sir Richard’s “stupid Nandina Rubra”. Sir Richard dismissed Jackson immediately. Which of the following best describes the legal situation here? Explain your answer.

• Jackson can claim for wrongful dismissal and will be successful in this because he has been dismissed without notice or wages in lieu.
• Jackson repudiated his employment contract by his refusal to obey a reasonable order from his employer and his display of insolence.
• Jackson can claim for constructive dismissal as he effectively resigned through his refusal and his display of insolence.
• Jackson cannot claim for unfair dismissal because his dismissal was for the fair reason given his actions.

Question 5

Runderwear& Co. offers their goods for sale through a number of shops. The firm supplies specialist underwear for long-distance runners made from anti-chaffing material. Dave, a local secondary school teacher, visited one of these shops in early 2020, where he purchased a pair of running boxer shorts.

Ordinarily, these are treated with a chemical as part of the anti-chaffing process which is then washed out of the garment. Due to a clerical error, the batch of garments from which Dave’s purchase derives were not subject to the washing procedure before sale. Dave ran 13.1 miles that evening whilst wearing his new underwear.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the excellent quality of the item, the presence of the chemical caused Dave to suffer severe dermatitis for which he was hospitalized for several weeks. Which of the following statements correctly follows from this if Dave brings a claim against Runderwear& Co.? Explain your answer.

• The goods are not of satisfactory quality (s.14(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979) and are not fit for their particular purpose (s.14(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979).
• The goods are not of satisfactory quality (s.9 Consumer Rights Act 2015) and are not fit for their particular purpose (s.10 Consumer Rights Act 2015).
• The goods are of satisfactory quality (s.14(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979) but not fit for their particular purpose (s.14(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979), however this is negated by Dave being at fault for not first washing the garment before wearing it.
• The goods are of satisfactory quality (s.9 Consumer Rights Act 2015) but not fit for their particular purpose (s.10 Consumer Rights Act 2015), however this is negated by Dave being at fault for not first washing the garment before wearing it.

Question 6

Which of the following are situations where an undisclosed principal is unable to sue on the contract, even if the agent did have actual authority to make the contract between the principal and a third party? Explain your answer.

• Where a term of the contract excluded agency.
• Where the third party would have refused to contract with the undisclosed principal.
• Where the third party made the contract with the agent because he particularly wanted to contract with the agent personally.
• Where the agent indicates that he is acting as an agent without actually identifying the principal for whom he is acting.
• Where the agent indicates that he is acting as an agent whilst identifying the principal for whom he is acting.

a. (i), (ii) and (iii) only.

b. (ii) and (iv) only.

c. (i), (iii) and (v) only.

d. (i), (ii) and (iv) only.

Question 7

Johnson Patel & Co. are a firm of accountants who prepare accounts for Aggressor plc, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. The latest set of accounts show a profit of £800,000. Dominic owned 500 shares in Aggressor plc. He read the accounts sent to him as a shareholder with great interest and purchased an additional 1,000 shares.

Subsequently, the accounts were found to have been negligently prepared. When news of this hit the public domain the share price reacted, plummeting to its lowest point for several years. Dominic sued Johnson Patel & Co. for negligence. Which of the following describes the most likely legal position here? Explain your answer.

• Johnson Patel & Co. are liable because the partners knew that the accounts would be sent to and relied upon by shareholders of Aggressor plc.
• Johnson Patel & Co. are liable because it was reasonably foreseeable that shareholders of Aggressor plc would rely on the accounts for the purpose of reviewing their investments.
• Johnson Patel & Co. are not liable because Dominic bought his additional shares in Aggressor plc from the London Stock Exchange and not from the company directly.
• Johnson Patel & Co. are not liable because the firm owes no duty to existing shareholders who rely on the accounts for a purpose other than as intended.

Question 8

Partners in an ordinary partnership are in a fiduciary relationship. Which of the following statements are not applicable given the nature of this relationship? Explain your answer.

• Partners are placed in a position of trust with each other.
• A partner must disclose any personal financial benefit received personally in connection with the firm.
• A partner can compete with the firm without the consent of the other partners providing this is disclosed subsequently.
• Partners are not entitled to a salary from the partnership.
• A partner can introduce new partners with the consent of the majority of the existing partners.

a. (i) and (ii) only.

b. (ii) and (iv) only.

c. (iii), and (v) only.

d. (iv) and (v) only.

Question 9

S.994 CA 2006 allows any company member to petition the court on the grounds that the affairs of the company are being, or have been, or will be, conducted in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the members generally or to the interests of particular members, including the member bringing the petition. Which of the following statements are applicable in such a claim? Explain your answer.

• In deciding what is fair the court will take into consideration the context and background to the case.
• Generally, members are bound by the articles. However, equitable principles might make it unfair to rely strictly on the articles in a way which equity would regard as contrary to good faith.
• Conduct can only be unfair under s.994 CA 2006 if it would be sufficient to wind the company up.
• Promises exchanged in quasi-partnership companies should only be binding as a matter of equity if they are binding as a matter of law.
• There would be no unfair prejudice if the majority offered to buy the minority’s shares at a reasonable price.

a. (i) and (v) only.

b. (ii) and (iii) only.

c. (iii) and (iv) only.

d. (i), (ii) and (v) only.

Question 10

Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE), a well-known manufacturer of games consoles, recently released the Playstation 5. This has powerful state of the art bespoke hardware capabilities. It comes in a two-tone design, matching the design of the accompanying DualSense controller, with a black internal block flanked by two white wings along its sides, each lit by blue LEDs.

The unit can operate vertically or horizontally. Bottronics Ltd is a quasi-partnership company whose members are avid fans of SEI and its products. Bottronics Ltd have produced a prototype of their own games console, Stationplay 5.0. The hardware is similar to PlayStation 5, although not as powerful given the cheaper components in its make-up.

It comes in a two-tone design, matching the design of an accompanying controller, with a white internal block flanked by two black wings along its sides, each lit by green LEDs. SEI bring a claim against Bottronics Ltd and seek an injunction to prevent the sale of Stationplay 5.0. What is the likely legal position here? Explain your answer.

• Bottronics Ltd are unlikely to be liable for passing off because of insufficient similarities in form and function between the two products and SIE will not be granted an injunction.
• Bottronics Ltd is likely to be liable for passing off because the similarities are such that consumers are likely to be fooled into buying Stationplay 5.0 in error, however, an injunction will not be granted because damages are sufficient to remedy.
• Bottronics Ltd is likely to be liable for passing off because of the similarities in form and function between the two products and SIE is likely to be granted an injunction.
• SEI would be advised to bring a claim for malicious falsehood rather than passing off as this is just an attempt by Bottronics Ltd to damage SEI’s business.

SECTION B (Attempt any THREE questions in Section B)

Question 11

Cybil, recently widowed, was devoted to her husband Ted of forty years. Her husband had substantial life insurance policies which have left Cybil financially secure. Cybil has further taken over her husband’s apparently successful business, Ted & Co.

Cybil has long been a believer in the supernatural and counts herself as a spiritualist. On one occasion, following the death of her husband, she attended a collective meeting in the village hall hosted by Madame Rosmerta, a celebrated local psychic.

Madame Rosmerta referred to Cybil’s loss and explained that the spirit of Ted was true with them that night and that he wished to convey a message to Cybil. The message was that Ted wished her to make a donation of£50,000 to a company called Thankfulness Culture Ltd. Cybil gifts the donation by deed.

Cybil soon discovers that Ted & Co. is not as successful as appearances would suggest. In fact, the business is on the verge of financial ruin. This is due to its primary creditor, Finance plc, calling in a loan amounting to £100,000 with overdue interest.

Finance plc will agree on a two-month hiatus to allow Cybil to make suitable arrangements to repay the loan, but only if Cybil will agree to transfer thirty percent of Ted & Co. to Finance plc. Cybil agrees and affects the transfer of shares.

Ten weeks later, Cybil is having tea with a friend, Dora, who mentions in passing that she had heard that Madame Rosmerta is on the board at Thankfulness Culture Ltd. Dora asks Cybil how Ted & Co. is getting on and Cybil confesses that she is becoming increasingly worried at the intervention of Finance plc, now a major shareholder, into the workings and policies of the company.

Required:

Cybil has come to you for guidance on the transactions which she entered into with Thankfulness Culture Ltd and Finance plc. She wishes to know if she can avoid these. Advise Cybil accordingly.

Question 12

Lucy owns and manages a general shop located in Sunbrough District Hospital. She routinely works in the shop throughout the week, relying on volunteers and/or agency staff when she is unavailable. The business has been running for three years.

Lucy routinely parks her car in a nearby car park based on former waste ground, owned and managed by CPAOR Ltd, a private provider of parking facilities unaffiliated with Sunbrough District Hospital.

At the entrance to the car park, immediately in front of the ticket machine, is a large sign which states: “CPAOR Ltd accept no liability whatsoever for damage caused to vehicles or other property, or injury sustained by persons using this facility, howsoever caused. Customers use these facilities entirely at their own risk.” Lucy has seen the sign in passing a number of times but has given it very little thought.

One night after closing the shop she returned to the car park to find her car badly damaged. She had witnessed the damage being caused by a security vehicle embossed with the CPAOR Ltd logo. She thought she recognised the driver as one of the security guards, although she could not be sure as unusually he didn’t appear to be wearing a uniform.

She immediately set off on foot to the telephone next to the ticket machine to make a complaint and was struck by the same security vehicle which had reversed sharply. Lucy’s hip was shattered in several places necessitating a lengthy operation and hospital stay followed by weeks of rehabilitation. She was off work for six months as a result. CPAOR Ltd has refused to accept any liability.

Lucy is seeking advice in connection with potential claims here. Advise Lucy of her legal rights in negligence.

Question 13

Magic Ltd is a company which was incorporated in 2002 and which operates in the entertainment business, as described in the company’s articles of association, however, its objects are in the form compliant with CA 1985 s3A, i.e. the object of the company is to carry on business as a general commercial company and that the company has the capacity to carry on any trade or business whatsoever, and the power to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the carrying on of any trade or business by it.

The articles specify that the board may delegate authority to individual directors of the board to form contracts on behalf of Magic Ltd up to and including a financial limit of £100,000. Contracts above this limit require prior authorization by the board as a whole.

Pearson has always acted as though he is the managing director of Magic Ltd, although this is not formally entered into as such. Pearson singularly instructs TopHat& Co. to install a sophisticated new lighting system at a cost of £110,000.

At a board meeting, the directors agree to a request from Suncastle University to sponsor a student from a disadvantaged background through a degree in marine biology. It later transpires that the student in question is the daughter of the brother of one of the directors.

Required:

Advise Magic Ltd on whether or not these transactions are valid, and of any liability attributable to the company and/or the board and its directors, under company law.

Question 14

Retail Ltd is facing financial difficulties in the current, pandemic-affected, trading environment. Footfall is down, sales are down, income and profits are following suit. On 1 January the company took swift and drastic action to stem growing trading losses by terminating the contracts of any and all employees who had been with the company for less than two years.

Several of these employees believe they have grounds for grievance at the company’s decision to terminate their employment and would wish to bring claims for unfair dismissal. Beth, a student, has worked for Retail Ltd during the past three summers on an ‘as and when required basis.

Carrie has complained that the need for an employee to have two years of continuous service is indirectly discriminatory towards female members of staff. Philippa, a manager, joined the senior management team of Retail Ltd around eighteen months ago when her former employer, for whom she had worked for ten years, was bought up by and subsumed within Retail Ltd.

Lewis, a delivery driver, has been with the company for twenty-four months but has been hospitalized with viral complications since the beginning of October. It seems clear that he contracted the virus through work. His prognosis is inconclusive and it is unclear when or whether he will be fit to return to work in the future.

Required:

Discuss the issues present in this scenario with respect to employment law.