Scribd
Upload
3 views

Draft

The document outlines various legal issues related to contract and tort law involving multiple parties, including Brenda, Carwyn, Ed, and Lorraine. Key issues include the enforceability of payment agreements, privacy breaches, and liability for injuries, with relevant legal principles such as promissory estoppel, contract modification, and misuse of private information discussed. Remedies and defenses are also addressed, highlighting potential compensation and injunctions for affected parties.

Uploaded by

2000fahadhassan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views

Draft

The document outlines various legal issues related to contract and tort law involving multiple parties, including Brenda, Carwyn, Ed, and Lorraine. Key issues include the enforceability of payment agreements, privacy breaches, and liability for injuries, with relevant legal principles such as promissory estoppel, contract modification, and misuse of private information discussed. Remedies and defenses are also addressed, highlighting potential compensation and injunctions for affected parties.

Uploaded by

2000fahadhassan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Draft: Extended Legal Problem Question

Coursework

Contract Law Issues


A. Brenda vs Carwyn: Payment Reduction Agreement

Issue:

Did Brenda’s acceptance of reduced payments create a legally binding agreement?

Rule:

 Promissory Estoppel: Prevents a promisor from retracting a promise relied upon by


the promisee (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947]).
 Consideration: Requires a reciprocal exchange of value to validate contractual
obligations (Foakes v Beer [1884]).

Application:

Brenda’s agreement to accept reduced payments lacks fresh consideration, as Carwyn


provided no additional value. However, Brenda adjusted her financial planning based on
Carwyn’s promise, demonstrating reliance sufficient to invoke promissory estoppel. The
inequity arising from Brenda’s sudden demand for full payments strengthens Carwyn’s
defense.

Conclusion:

Carwyn can argue that promissory estoppel prevents Brenda from enforcing the original
terms. However, this defense may only suspend Brenda’s rights temporarily.

B. Carwyn and Ed: Wall Construction Dispute

Issue:

Is Carwyn liable to pay the additional £2,000 promised to Ed?

Rule:

 Contract Modification: Modifications must involve fresh consideration unless a


practical benefit is conferred (Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]).
 Economic Duress: Invalidates agreements formed under illegitimate pressure (Atlas
Express Ltd v Kafco [1989]).
Application:

Carwyn’s promise of extra payment for timely completion conferred a practical benefit—
avoiding customer complaints and lost revenue. However, Ed’s expedited completion appears
voluntary, undermining claims of duress.

Conclusion:

Ed can argue for enforcement of the additional £2,000 based on the practical benefit doctrine,
but Carwyn may counter with the absence of enforceable consideration.

C. Carwyn and Dai: Work Experience Agreement

Issue:

Did Carwyn’s promise to pay Dai £100 create a binding contract?

Rule:

 Intention to Create Legal Relations: Social promises are presumed non-binding


(Balfour v Balfour [1919]).
 Capacity of Minors: Contracts with minors are voidable unless for necessities or
beneficial employment.

Application:

Carwyn’s informal promise likely lacked the requisite intent to create legal relations. Dai’s
minor status further complicates enforceability, as the promise of £100 does not constitute a
necessity or clearly beneficial employment.

Conclusion:

Dai’s claim for payment is unlikely to succeed, though Carwyn’s provision of free tickets
mitigates potential inequity.

Tort Law Issues


A. Lorraine’s Privacy Breach

Issue:

Did Carwyn’s use of Lorraine’s CCTV images constitute misuse of private information?

Rule:
 Misuse of Private Information: Protects unauthorized use of personal data
(Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004]).
 Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: Individuals retain privacy rights in public
places, especially concerning their children.

Application:

Lorraine and her children had a reasonable expectation of privacy, breached by Carwyn’s
unauthorized publication of CCTV images. The absence of consent and commercial use of
the images further solidifies the claim.

Conclusion:

Lorraine may recover damages for privacy invasion and seek an injunction to remove the
images.

B. Gareth and Joanne: False Imprisonment

Issue:

Did Wyn’s actions amount to false imprisonment?

Rule:

 False Imprisonment: Requires unlawful restriction of movement (Bird v Jones


[1845]).
 Duty of Care: Negligence may arise from failing to ensure customer safety
(Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]).

Application:

Wyn’s failure to check CCTV before locking the mine doors unlawfully confined Gareth and
Joanne. This complete restriction satisfies the criteria for false imprisonment.

Conclusion:

Gareth and Joanne may claim damages for distress and seek procedural improvements to
prevent future incidents.

C. Sandie’s Injury

Issue:

Are Tom, Robert, and Carwyn liable for Sandie’s injuries?

Rule:
 Trespass to the Person: Covers assault and battery (Collins v Wilcock [1984]).
 Vicarious Liability: Employers may be liable for employees’ actions.

Application:

Tom and Robert’s deliberate actions caused Sandie’s injuries, constituting battery. Carwyn’s
potential liability depends on whether Dai’s threats toward Robert implicate vicarious
liability.

Conclusion:

Sandie may claim compensation for medical expenses and emotional distress, though
Carwyn’s liability is less certain.

Remedies and Defenses


A. Contractual Remedies

 Specific Performance: Enforce payment promises (e.g., Ed’s additional £2,000).


 Damages: Compensate for losses due to breach.

B. Tort Remedies

 Injunctions: Prevent further misuse of private information.


 Compensation: Address reputational harm, emotional distress, and medical costs.

C. Defenses

 Defamation: Tina may invoke truth as a defense.


 False Imprisonment: Wyn may argue operational error as mitigation.

You might also like