July 2019 Exam Report PDF

Preview

Summary

EXAMINATION REPORTCourse Code/Title : BUS201 – Contract and Agency LawSemester : JULY 201 9 SEMESTERPART IOverall Performance of Students in the Examination:On the whole, most students were able to broadly identify and respond to the main legal issues associated with the questions. However, while st...

Description

EXAMINATION REPORT

Course Code/Title

: BUS201 – Contract and Agency Law

Semester

: JULY 2019 SEMESTER

PART I Overall Performance of Students in the Examination: On the whole, most students were able to broadly identify and respond to the main legal issues associated with the questions. However, while students were generally able to state the relevant legal principles, some students did not apply them correctly or responsively to the facts of the scenarios in the questions. Students generally tended to perform better for Question 1 (relating to the four elements of a valid contract) and Question 2 (relating to the enforceability of the exemption clause). However, students tended to perform less well for Question 3 (relating to the precise performance rule and its exceptions) and Question 4 (relating to the creation of agency). While many students were able to cite supporting case law and statutory provisions (where applicable) when stating the legal principles, a number of students did not do so sufficiently. Most students were able to attempt all of the four Questions. However, a number of students provided answers to Question 4 that were too brief or inadequate, and this may be due to poor time management.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Students in Examination: Key strengths: •

Students who performed well were able to correctly state the relevant legal principles that corresponded to the legal issues posed by each question, cite supporting case law and statutory provisions (where applicable), and apply such principles responsively to the specific facts of each question.

Page 1 of 5

•

The higher quality answers also tended to be well-structured with a logical flow, and had internal consistency.

Key weaknesses: •

Some students were not able to state and apply the correct legal principles that are relevant to the specific question.

•

A few students had answers that completely missed the mark in terms of what the question was asking. For example, Question 2 specifically asked students to “apply the legal rules under the four (4) points relating to the enforceability of an exemption clause”. Instead of discussing and applying the principles under the four points of (i) incorporation; (ii) construction; (iii) unusual factors; and (iv) Unfair Contract Terms Act, some students incorrectly discussed the distinction between terms and representations instead.

•

There were also a few answers which simply set out a long list of principles (regardless of relevance) which were not applicable to the specific facts of the question.

PART II Overall performance for each Question: Question 1 Question 1 tested students on the four elements of a valid contract. Strengths: •

In general, students were able to identify the four elements relating to the formation of a valid contract, define the key legal terms, and state the main legal principles relating to each of the four elements.

•

Most students were able to conclude, with good reasons, why there is a valid contract between SEF and EMC, and why there is no valid contract between SEF and HTG.

Page 2 of 5

Weaknesses: •

Some answers analysed incorrectly that there is a valid contract between SEF and HTG. This is unlikely as

•

Since there were a number of emails sent by various parties mentioned in the scenario, students should specifically mention the date and source of the email, instead of generically referring to “the email”, when analyzing the effect of each of the emails.

•

Some students did not undertake a systematic and internally consistent analysis – for example, they conclude that there is no valid offer, but later state that there is a valid contract.

Question 2 Question 2 tested students on the enforceability of an exemption clause. Strengths: •

In general, many students were able to state and apply the relevant legal principles to test the enforceability of the exemption clause, i.e. by discussing all the four aspects of (i) incorporation; (ii) construction; (iii) unusual factors; and (iv) validity under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (or “UCTA”).

•

For the discussion under the UCTA, many students were able to correctly distinguish between liability for personal injuries as opposed to other losses (i.e. property damage or loss). In other words, these students were able to apply the appropriate framework under the UCTA for each of these types of liability.

Weaknesses: •

There are two clauses stated in the notice board in the scenario. As the question required students to “identify the exemption clause in this scenario”, students need to explicitly state which clause is the exemption clause. In this scenario, it is Clause 2. However, a number of students failed to do so.

•

A number of students were not able to provide an adequate analysis, based on the principles in the UCTA, on the enforceability of the exemption clause with respect to the damage to Tom’s mobile phone. This requires a discussion of the “reasonableness” test under Section 2(2) of the UCTA, read with Section 11 and the guidelines in the Second Schedule of the UCTA.

Page 3 of 5

Question 3 Question 3 tested students on the precise performance rule and its exceptions. Strengths: •

Most students were able to state the precise performance rule and its exceptions.

•

Higher quality answers were able to apply the legal principles responsively to the facts in the scenario, to reach a coherent conclusion.

Weaknesses: •

Some students did not describe the legal principles relating to the exceptions correctly and adequately. For example, it is not sufficient for students to simply state that “acceptance of partial performance is an exception”, without describing in some detail what the doctrine entails and its effects.

•

Some students did not cite the relevant case law when discussing the legal principles.

•

A few answers completely missed the mark by discussing breach of contract instead. This does not correspond to the question which specifically requires students to discuss the rules relating to discharge by performance.

Question 4 Question 4 tested students on the creation of agency. Strengths: •

Most students were able to discuss and apply the relevant legal principles relating to actual and apparent authority.

•

Higher quality answers were able to apply the legal principles responsively to the given facts. For example, they are able to show how each of the criteria for apparent authority is satisfied based on the given facts.

Weaknesses: •

A few students discussed the creation of agency through ratification. This is not correct as the facts given in the scenario do not support such an analysis.

•

When discussing actual authority, some students did not demonstrate that they

Page 4 of 5

understood the difference between express actual authority and implied actual authority. Some students also confused these concepts with express and implied terms. •

Question 4(a) asked students to “support your answer with specific examples based on the above scenario”. Some students did not give any examples from the scenario at all, while some students failed to give enough examples.

•

For Question 4(b), while most students were able to discuss one duty that Edwin may have breached, they did not cite supporting case law for the duty.

Page 5 of 5...