GDL Contract Law - Paper 2

Discuss the doctrine of privity of contract and evaluate the extent to which the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 has addressed its perceived injustices. Consider the common law position as established in Tweeddle v Atkinson (1861) and Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge (1915), the statutory exceptions, and the practical impact of the 1999 Act. Has the Act achieved its objectives or do significant limitations remain?

Gemma, a florist, enters a contract with Henry to supply 500 bouquets for his daughter's wedding on 15 June for £10,000. On 1 June, a rare plant disease destroys 80% of Gemma's stock. Gemma sources replacement flowers from abroad at triple the usual cost and delivers 500 bouquets of slightly different composition on the wedding day. Henry refuses to pay, claiming the bouquets are not as specified. Meanwhile, Gemma's delivery driver negligently crashes into a guest's car in the venue car park, causing £2,000 damage. The guest, Isla, sues Henry, arguing he is vicariously liable for Gemma's driver. Advise all parties on their rights and liabilities, considering frustration, substantial performance, and vicarious liability.

Evaluate the law on misrepresentation in English contract law. Critically assess the distinction between fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation, and consider whether the remedies available under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 are satisfactory. Discuss the relationship between misrepresentation and contractual terms, and assess the impact of s.2(2) discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission.

Jake agrees to build a conservatory for Karen for £25,000, to be completed by 1 September. The contract specifies that time is of the essence. By 15 August, Jake has completed 70% of the work but informs Karen he cannot finish until 15 September due to supply chain delays. Karen is furious because she has planned a party for 5 September. Karen tells Jake not to return and hires another builder, Liam, who completes the work for £15,000 but to a lower specification. Karen now refuses to pay Jake anything. Jake claims he is entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis. Meanwhile, Karen discovers that the materials Jake used were sourced from a supplier who had bribed Jake with a £2,000 kickback. Advise all parties.

Critically analyse the doctrine of economic duress in English contract law. Evaluate the development from the early recognition in The Siboen and The Sibotre (1976) through to the modern formulation in Times Travel v Pakistan International Airlines (2021). Consider the relationship between economic duress and consideration, and assess whether the current law provides adequate protection against illegitimate commercial pressure while preserving freedom of contract.