Assessment Coversheet

Complete this coversheet and read the instructions below carefully.

Candidate Number:
103517

Degree Title: Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Standard Entry

Module Title:
Contract law

Module Code: LA
1040

Enter the numbers, and sub-sections, of the questions in the order in which you
have attempted them:

Q3, Q4, Q7, Q1.

Date: 8th june, 2021

Instructions to Candidates

1. Complete this coversheet and begin typing your answers on the page below, or,
submit the coversheet with your handwritten answers (where handwritten answers
are permitted or required as part of your online timed assessment).
2. Clearly state the question number, and any sub-sections, at the beginning of each
answer and also note them in the space provided above.
3. For typed answers, use a plain font such as Arial or Calibri and font size 12 point or
larger.
4. Where permission has been given in advance, handwritten answers (including
diagrams or mathematical formulae) must be done on light coloured paper using
blue or black ink.
5. Reference your diagrams in your typed answers. Label diagrams clearly.

Examiners attach great importance to legibility, accuracy and clarity of

expression.
 Begin your answers on this page
Note that the words on the assessment coversheet and to the end of this sentence
point will be about 240 words.

Q3.
Answer : Contract law relating to mistake is very difficult due to different views of judges,
lawyers and authors because they usually describe the same concept in different
manners. Not just this issue, the area for this law is very narrow because the disturbance
created in the contract through mistakes is very small and difficult to identify the part of
burden of loss fall upon the party. Generally mistake can be unilateral or bilateral where
one party or both the parties are on mistake. As far as the questioned asked by the
examiner is concerned the area we need to identify when there is a mistake in the identity
so how can we justify the burden of loss fell upon which party and at what point the
contract become void or voidable.
To recognise the further concern of the examiner we need to look in to the two areas of
law when two parties make contract on a distance and when two parties make a contract
face to face. We need to identify whether former or the latel issue is justifiable or which
one is the most justifiable. Prior to the clarification received by the house of lords in the
case of shogun finance v Hudson (2003), it was generally decided in a manner if a person
(rogue) made a contract with A and he mislead him through fake identity which was
discovered at the time when A tried to cash the cheque but it was not honoured, which
was given in the exchange of goods sold to Rogue, on the other hand Rogue sold the
goods to C, the question arose which party can still claim the ownership of the goods.
Generally it was decided that if the contract between Rogue and A was good then the
property belongs to C because A passed on the ownership to Rogue and Rogue is entitled
to further pass on the ownership to C. And if the contract was not good between A and
Rogue then the property still belongs to A because the ownership was never passed on.
The question arose in front of court who will bear the burden of fraud among mistaken and
deceived party or the innocent third party. It was difficult to justify until the suggestion
came from the case of Devlin LJ in Ingram v little (1961) which gave us the mechanism to
divide the loss between two parties. It was mentioned if it is proven to any extent that
mistake was not sufficient enough to prove contract void so there is a way where
misrepresentation can made the contract voidable, so the first party must avail this option
before the Rogue and the third party be into in a contract, otherwise the first party will lose
the option and cannot rescind the contract.
First if we focus on the area where two parties doing contract on a distance this favours
the first party because the Rogue hide the actual identity which was crucial for the contract
and mislead the first party, so it was declared in the case of Cundy v Lindsay (1878). That
the contract will be void if the first party gets successful to establish that while entering in
to the contract he reasonably believed that the other party pretended to be someone else
and he was compel to assume the fake identity of Rogue and moreover Rogue was fully
aware that first party has no intention to be in the contract with his actual identity although
the correct identity has a crucial importance for the contract as reliance, so the contract will
be void. It was further established in the case of Dennand v Skinner (1948). It was proved
that there was an absence of consent entering in to the contract which made contract void.
But this relaxment is not available when a party enter in the contract with the other party
face to face. In this scenario the contract will be voidable but it is difficult to establish that
the contract was void although there is an uncertainty found in this area of law. In the case
of Inter praesentes (face to face) the presumption that the contract is not void was
inconsistent before the case of Shogun finance v Hudson (2003). Now it is cleared to
some extent by the decision in Shogun, where it was necessary for the innocent party to
check the actual identity of the other person and the contract was made face to face, it is
accepted by most of law lords that the consent to enter in to the contract was present and
this fact made the contract voidable instead of void. Although this presumption is
rebuttable. That is further elaborated in the case of Ingram v Little (1961) by the court of
appeal through descending law lords, according to them there should be no distinction in
the parties are making contract through the distance, and in the both scenarios whether
distance or face to face the contract should be voidable, disapproving the authority of
Cundy v Lindsay (1878).
Keeping in mind the area of contract where the mistake is involved it is very hard ti identify
in which case the contract is void and in which case it is voidable, whether the contract
was made through distance or face to face. Although in the case of making contract by
distance the apparent contract was void, it is still very uncertain to clarify and the
presumption which make the contract face to face voidable is still revertible. Hence the
uncertainty in this area of law can be seen thoroughly.

Q 04.
Answer:
Those statements which were made prior to entering in to a contract that proves to false
and mislead the other party can be considered as misrepresentation specially in the case
when those statements becomes terms of the contract. And in the case of that breach
there is a remedy available to the innocent party who was misrepresented by the other
party, but in some cases these remedies can be limited or revoked if it does not prove to
be sufficient enough to claim the remedy. The question arose what are the limitations
which justifies the claim against the misrepresentation.
Usually all the cases except a contract between trader and consumer is deled by section 3
of misrepresentation act 1967. As amended by section 8 of the unfair contract terms act
1977. To qualify this section it has to be satisfy that it sufficient enough according to the
rules set by section 11 of the UCTA through the test of reasonableness. It was seen in the
case of Avrora fine arts investment ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods ltd (2012). The
decision was held by the judges after determining the test of reasonableness which is
necessary under section 3 of the misrepresentation act 1967.
The test of reasonableness defines under section 11 of UCTA as :”A fair and reasonable
one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to
have been known to … the parties when the contract was made”. This test primarily gone
through three steps. First was determined as at what time they entered into the contract
without deliberately benefiting from the situation (Stewart Gill ltd v Hortio Myer and Co ltd
1992). The second point which emphasized b section 11 (5) that the party must rely on the
statement made which justifies the importance of the statement, however the third point
which clarifies the standard of reasonableness is difficult to determine because this varies
upon the facts of the cases and each judge interfere with the different concept although
the upper court specially the court of appeal always try to spare itself in interfering the
judgement of lower court until unless it is necessary and can be seen obvious wrong
(George Michell Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds 1983). Although section 11 (4) of UCTA counter
the exclusion or limitation upon the remedy of misrepresentation where it is generally
depends upon the bargaining position of the parties and this section which deals with the
standard of reasonableness only applies on the things expressly said specially under
section 6 and section. In the case of Watford Electronics v Sanderson (2001) where the
claimant claimed for the damages including the loss of profit, the court of appeal held that
in the case where all the parties are experienced and accepted the risks for non-
performance, it is justify to exclude the liability and any other liability on the base of
reasonableness.
Those broad attempts proven to be unreasonable which tried to exclude liability no matter
how widely the standard conditions were used (Walker v Boyle 1982). Where the
misrepresentation cause by negligent or innocence of party cannot be considered as fraud
so that the only possible way to rescind the contract and claim for the damages it has to be
fraudulent misrepresentation (HIH causality and general insurance ltd v Chase Manhattan
Bank 2003)
In those cases where the entire agreement clause or clauses consider, they put through
the example of assertion. In which no statement made or consider except the clauses
mentioned in the agreement consider to be reliable and effective to restrict the liability but
it is a pre-UCTA version of section 3 (Overbrooke estates v Glencombe Properties 1974).
Although generally cases emphasises that the entire agreement clause or clauses do fall
within the scope of section 3 which exclude the liability of misrepresentation concerning
the above law (Cremdean Properties v Nash 1977). Although generally in mostly cases
this concept is rejected (Watford Electronics ltd v Sanderson ltd 2001) although the
sufficient resolution for this conflict is still waiting.
If you talk about the trader and a consumer contract which goes through the test of
fairness under CRA 2015 (Section 62 and schedule 4). This determines that any statement
which is made prior to the contract and the consumer relied upon it, if it turns to be false,
the consumer can claim the remedies under CRA 2015 for misrepresentation, under the
law of misrepresentation.
Generally it is not difficult to seek remedies under misrepresentation but also it is difficult to
justify why the limitations should not be there for the ease of innocent party if it’s fairly
passed the test of reasonableness set in section 11 of the UCTA which is the basic
demand of section 3 of the misrepresentation act 1967. Although the entire agreement
clauses are generally considered to be fall under the scope of section 3.

Question 7:
ANSWER: In the area where the illegal contracts are concern the courts always adopt the
discretional approach whether to enforce the illegal contract or to justify the remedy to one
party without enforcing the illegal contract in their views the case Patel v Mirza 2016,
where the claimant give money to defendant to get information through illegal means to
gain profit it of it the material subject in this case was the illegal information which by any
chance did not happen so the conduct was not done, the claimant seeks the amount he
paid to the defendant for the conduct which was not done the court in the decision of that
case awarded the relief to claimant to recover all the money which he paid to the
defendant a reasoning given by the court which was sharply diverged in the sense that he
didn’t opted for the profit he was supposed to make but he only claim for the money paid to
the defendant. This case leaves the question among the judiciary is that whether it is
allowed to enforce any legal contract or to give relief to the one party. It can be justifiable
seen that the two option was about to opt by the judiciary either the reversal of the contract
or the enforcement of that contract however revering the contract which is illegal cannot be
count as against the public policy or the consequences same as the enforcement of the
illegal contract.
the statement which left uncertainty, complexity and sometimes inconsistency among the
law relating to the illegal contracts can be determined by assuming few steps first why
obtain for benefit in the illegal contract should not be allowed is that the court wants to
preserve the integrity and consistency which was supposed to cause if it was allowed
because somehow it was equality to the illegal contract. The second is it should not be
allowed any benefit to any party rather than relief because it is contrary to public policy
otherwise it could damage the dignity of the court it is because the law cannot be permit a
person to gain benefit or any profit through his wrong way although refusal for the relif
could cause disturbance among the people which is not a good deal.
Although it is not always a willingness conduct because sometimes annoyance can be the
cause for entrenchment of the law so that if the party is innocent here they depending
upon the determine argument will be doubtful because it is not the function of civil but
criminal law.
Another argument which can justify the decision of the supreme court of the Petal v Mirza
2016 the main purpose to stop the unjust enrichment. In the case Les Laboratories servivr
v apotex inc (2014) it was emphasis by many judges that the law relating to illegal should
be only accordingly to law.
This judgement in Patel v Mizra 2016, compel the jury to find more reasonable ways
because right now there cannot be any other way except suggestion made in above case
although this thing generates a revolution in this area of law which regards to sharp
diversions although making uncertain, complex and inconsistence

Q1.
Answer: It is the case relating to the tender where if a party request for tender it is consider
as invitation to trade although if the person received an offer upon request, it is sufficient
enough to consider as offer for acceptance and if the person who made request accepted
that offer it is amount to be an acceptance and the both parties will enter into a legal
contract (Harvela Investment ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada ltd 1985)
A person which is an old lady by the name of Lady Amity decided sale of her hotel so that
she advertise in the newspaper as “Exclusive Hotel for sale by tender. Terms and envelop
for submission available. All tenders to be received by mid-day first February”. So in the
first scenario she received two tenders on 30th January and she throw away one tender
with the intention to not accept it and forget about the other tender. First tender she
received by Brash and second by Clarissa. In the second scenario she received another
tender on 5th February by email which was by Devi. In which she showed uncertain
interest in buying hotel for around one million pound but for that she applied a condition
before taking the decision she will need to do a profitability survey be herself. And she
paid a fee of one thousand pounds to lady Amity as a fee to not offer the hotel to any other
party before 1st march and also she pays 25 thousand pounds to enterprise co to a
profitability survey which is very positive. In the third scenario on 18th February Frederik
called lady Amity while driving and offered 11 million pounds for the hotel, upon which lady
Amity accepted the offer by saying “Yes that’s a deal”. But Frederik does not hear it due to
loud noise so he ring back but meanwhile lady Amity called Devi and informed her the
hotel have been sold. And then Frederik thought he had offered a lot then he called back
lady Amity and offers to buy the hotel in 10 million pounds.
In the first scenario where the two tenders received as an offer does it amount to a
sufficient offer according to the advertisement? The answer is yes because the
advertisement is sufficient to call as invitation to trade and the offer in reply is sufficient
enough to consider as offer for acceptance because both were in prescribed form. In the
case of Brash the issue related to the acceptance clarifies the conduct of lady Amity of
throwing the tender with intention of rejection, this is sufficient enough to consider the
rejection against the offer made by Brash. In the case of Clarissa it is also sufficient
enough to called as offer for acceptance which was not further communicated, which
amounts to automatic rejection between the parties. This made the offer void because of
the general rule the offer will be void if it is not respond back between the 48 hours.
And where the second scenario is concerned the question arose whether it is an offer or
not, with the conduct of paying 1000 pound as a fee for not sale the hotel to someone else
for the certain period of time is sufficient enough to prove the intention of the party which is
sufficient enough to call it an offer for acceptance (Harris v Nickerson 1873). Also Devi
paid 25000 pounds to enterprise co which prove both the intention and consideration for
acceptance for lady Amity to hold the offer till 1st march. This will amount that the lady
Amity if offer it to someone else or intent to real offer someone else to accept the offer will
be in breach of the terms she had with Devi to hold the offer till 1st march.
Note: The offer made by Devi does not amount to be offer against the advertisement made
by lady Amity in the newspaper because it was valid till mid-day’s 1st February only.
In the 3rd scenario offer made by Frederik is sufficient enough to called as the offer for
acceptance but the acceptance by the lady Amity cannot be sufficiently amount to
acceptance for offer because the acceptance was made in loud noise and it was not
communicated. Although the change of mind is legal for the Frederick because the offer
was not reasonably accepted (Tayne v Cave 1789).