Turn on thread page Beta

Problem question for Moot watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Closed
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf Case Problem 1.pdf (306.7 KB, 121 views)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nelson cooper)
    Hi all, wonder if any kind soul is willing to lend a helping hand regarding the attached document ("Case Problem 1").

    In a nutshell:
    - It is a problem for a mooting event and I happen to be participating in it. However, the area (ground of appeal point 2 in the document) is something I am not entirely familiar yet.

    - It is a contract based case dealing with aspects of part payment of a debt and estoppel.

    - I am the acting "Junior Respondent" and will be dealing with the second ground of appeal regarding estoppel shown in the attached document.

    - The ultimate question I shall put forward is whether or not, my client (Hatherly in the case) will be able to revive her legal rights and claim for the outstanding balance according to the pre-existing contract between the 2 parties?

    I am open to suggestions and guidance towards this matter. Please kindly advise. Thanks!
    I'm not sure quite what the issue is as you've identified both the substantive topics, but I'll do my best to answer.

    The first, as I assume you know, is a single-sided contract variation. Exe IT has, in effect, 'reduced' the burden of its duty by getting more favourable repayment terms without providing any new legal consideration. Therefore, they want you to consider whether Williams v Roffey Bros can apply.

    The second issue is a discussion of promissory estoppel. Mrs Smith appears to have represented that Exe IT may enjoy the variation. However, PE traditionally required reliance, detriment/iniquity etc. They want you to consider whether the facts can amount to those requirements as presently formulated. Collier v Wright is particularly important here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey thanks Nolofinwë for the reply! Been struggling with the aspect of PE. I have formulated sort of an argument structure but still unsure if it's convincing enough.

    Yes it is in fact Mrs Smith appears to have given the (wrong) impression that Exe IT may pay 8000 quid to "write off" the entire debt but my argument goes that's not the case because on the facts, "...to leave matters there for good" is vague and precarious in nature. It could mean to leave matters there as it is until both companies improved from the financial hurdle. Further, it is not explicitly expressed that it is to write off the entire debt. Also, Mrs Smith did not express nor imply that she would not insist on her legal rights to claim for the remainder. Furthermore, both parties made the undertaking during difficult times so their sole intention is to prevent their companies to incur any further losses.

    I am also arguing on the basis that Mrs Smith's rights were not extinguished, instead they're just merely suspensory applying the case of Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric (as the case is older than the High Trees and it is a House of Lords decision). I am not sure though if the case of Hughes or High Trees would be more relevant in this aspect.

    The case of Collier absolutely goes against Mrs Smith's claim as the crux in the case states that rights were not necessarily suspensory but it can lead to rights being fully extinguished (which would then destroy Mrs Smith's claim for the remainder) and this is also the issue I am partly struggling with (especially because it is a 2007 case, however, the facts were quite different from the present one as it is a joint liability matter in Collier).

    Any further advice mate?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nelson cooper)
    Hey thanks Nolofinwë for the reply! Been struggling with the aspect of PE. I have formulated sort of an argument structure but still unsure if it's convincing enough.

    Yes it is in fact Mrs Smith appears to have given the (wrong) impression that Exe IT may pay 8000 quid to "write off" the entire debt but my argument goes that's not the case because on the facts, "...to leave matters there for good" is vague and precarious in nature. It could mean to leave matters there as it is until both companies improved from the financial hurdle. Further, it is not explicitly expressed that it is to write off the entire debt. Also, Mrs Smith did not express nor imply that she would not insist on her legal rights to claim for the remainder. Furthermore, both parties made the undertaking during difficult times so their sole intention is to prevent their companies to incur any further losses.

    I am also arguing on the basis that Mrs Smith's rights were not extinguished, instead they're just merely suspensory applying the case of Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric (as the case is older than the High Trees and it is a House of Lords decision). I am not sure though if the case of Hughes or High Trees would be more relevant in this aspect.

    The case of Collier absolutely goes against Mrs Smith's claim as the crux in the case states that rights were not necessarily suspensory but it can lead to rights being fully extinguished (which would then destroy Mrs Smith's claim for the remainder) and this is also the issue I am partly struggling with (especially because it is a 2007 case, however, the facts were quite different from the present one as it is a joint liability matter in Collier).

    Any further advice mate?
    No problem at all. I'm not going to advise on the choice between High Trees or Hughes because I haven't read either of them closely for a few years. What I will say, however, is be careful with High Trees if you are arguing that it is merely suspensory. If you think about it carefully, High Trees had some extinctive effect.

    One thing I think you should discuss is the apparent absence of any detriment. Exe IT would not, prima facie, suffer any detriment if the promise were resiled from, because it would only restore him to his strict legal duties. See Arden LJ in Collier, and consider whether her judgment is supportable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll certainly do that. Thanks for the guidance!

    I have to pick my authorities really carefully because I am only entitled to use 3 convincing case laws for a 5 minutes speech. I'll definitely read the judgment of Arden LJ in Collier to see if there are loopholes I can find.

    Cheers!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.