LLB Contract Law - 2024 Paper 5

TechBuild Ltd agrees to renovate the offices of Harper & Co Solicitors for £150,000, with completion due on 1 March. The contract provides that the work must be done to "a reasonable professional standard." TechBuild subcontracts the electrical work to Sparks Ltd for £30,000. During the renovation, TechBuild discovers asbestos in the ceiling, which was not identified in the pre-contract survey. Removing the asbestos will cost an additional £25,000 and delay completion by four weeks. TechBuild informs Harper & Co but proceeds with the work without waiting for instructions. Harper & Co's senior partner, Mr Harper, verbally agrees to pay the additional cost "as long as the work is done properly." TechBuild completes all work, including asbestos removal, by 29 March. However, the electrical work done by Sparks Ltd is defective and causes a small fire, damaging Harper & Co's server room and destroying client files. The cost of repairing the electrical work is £10,000 and the server room damage is £40,000. Harper & Co refuses to pay the additional £25,000 for asbestos removal. Advise all parties on their contractual rights and liabilities.

Critically evaluate the doctrine of discharge by agreement in contract law. Discuss the requirements for a valid release, accord and satisfaction, and the role of consideration in bilateral and unilateral discharge. Consider the difficulties arising from the rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) regarding part-payment of debts and assess whether the decision of the Court of Appeal in Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd (2007) has effectively circumvented the rule through the application of promissory estoppel. Evaluate whether the law in this area is coherent or in need of reform.

PrimeCatering Ltd enters a contract to provide catering services for a series of corporate events organised by EventStar Ltd over six months, for a total fee of £60,000. After three months and three events, EventStar's new operations manager, Julia, decides the food quality is unsatisfactory and informs PrimeCatering that it is terminating the contract immediately. PrimeCatering has in fact received excellent feedback from event attendees and has won an industry award during the contract period. EventStar has already paid £30,000 for the first three events. PrimeCatering has turned down a contract with a rival events company worth £45,000 in order to prioritise the EventStar contract. PrimeCatering claims £30,000 for the remaining three events plus £45,000 for the lost opportunity. Advise the parties on the lawfulness of EventStar's termination and the measure of damages available to PrimeCatering.

Discuss the availability and scope of equitable remedies in contract law, with particular focus on specific performance and injunctions. Critically evaluate the circumstances in which courts will grant specific performance as an alternative to damages, and consider whether the current approach adequately reflects the expectations of contracting parties. Reference should be made to the principles in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd (1998) and Beswick v Beswick (1968). Assess whether English law should adopt a more liberal approach to specific performance, as seen in some civilian jurisdictions.

Oliver contracts with Pinnacle Events Ltd to hire a luxury marquee and provide full event management services for his daughter's wedding reception on 20 July, for a total price of £15,000. The contract specifies that the marquee will be "a premium white silk marquee with crystal chandeliers and a wooden dance floor." On the day, Pinnacle provides a standard canvas marquee without chandeliers, and a laminate floor instead of wood. The event manager assigned is a trainee with no experience. The weather turns bad, and the standard marquee leaks, ruining the bride's dress (worth £3,000) and causing guests to leave early. Oliver spent £2,000 on a photographer who captured mostly images of unhappy guests in a leaking tent. Oliver claims: (a) the full £15,000 contract price; (b) £3,000 for the dress; (c) £2,000 for wasted photography costs; (d) £10,000 for distress and disappointment. Advise Oliver on the viability of each head of claim.