Assessment problem
For the assessment you should write an answer to the problem below. To answer the problem, you will need to consider the cases you should have read in BBF 5th ed. for seminars, or which you were asked to cover on your own, as well as other material which has been lectured on and in the suggested reading. In particular you should look at the revised section of BBF on Liquidated Damages and Deposits (which will be available on the module webpages under Materials). You are also expected to be familiar with topics that were not directly lectured on, but which appeared in the lecture handouts (except for material marked as not examinable).
You should state the issues, support your argument with authority (case law or legislation) and present your conclusions. Overleaf you will find some Notes of Guidance.
Word limit: your answer should not exceed 2,500 words, although footnotes (which should be for references only) and the Bibliography are not included in this. Any text in the footnotes which is discussion (rather than just references) is included in the word-limit.
February. SBG then wrote to him terminating the contract and refusing to pay him anything.
SBG has also discovered that in fact Bunter has submitted only 490 reports; and that Bunter visited very few vegetarian restaurants, which SBG says “skews the survey”. Bunter says he visited few vegetarian places because “beans are food for horses, not people.”
SGB say that clause 13 was put into the contract because it would not be possible to commission anyone else of Bunter’s reputation to do the survey instead of Bunter in the time available before publication. They may be able to get someone else to write a essay based on Bunter’s reports without delaying publication but they are not yet sure.
Advise Bunter.
Notes.
1. It is recommended that at the beginning of your answer you state the issues raised by the problem in as precise a manner as possible. (NB: you may have to plan your answer in detail before you can formulate the issues precisely.)
2. You do not need to start by recounting the facts of the problem; you may assume the reader has read the problem. Introduce the facts as they become relevant to the course of your analysis. If you consider that you need to know further facts in order to give a conclusive answer, indicate what those facts are.
3. Please give authority for all except the most basic points. Cases relied on for major points should be briefly explained to show how they support the proposition you are putting forward (unless you are merely quoting an obiter dictum). Statutes need not be quoted unless you are making a point on the detailed wording, but you should refer to the relevant section/ sub-section.
4. Remember to keep the different points separate and try to deal with them in logical order. Make sure you have worked through each point in full (e.g. remember to consider what remedies may be available).
5. Make sure that, so far as you are able, you apply the law you have explained to the facts of the problem and give a conclusion on each point, even if it is the form “it depends on whether x or y”.
6. Marks will not be given for irrelevant matter; this includes points about which there can be no argument and which are therefore not “in issue”.