L1490 A dis mar21 sit 2 advance reading finaldoc PDF

Preview

Summary

March 2021- advance materials-exam...

Description

DISPUTE RESOLUTION EXAMINATION 16 March 2021 L1490_A ADVANCE DOCUMENTS

The examination will contain 6 documents – 5 documents are attached in advance. For the avoidance of doubt the documents are as follows:Document A – is not attached Document 1 – Proof of Evidence of Sam Amissah is attached Document 2 – Extract of Contract is attached Document 3 – Report of Robert Obengdwemoh is attached Document 4 – Report of Jim Harvey is attached Document 5 – Disclosure Statement to Legal Adviser is attached

Whilst all of the documents will be available with the examination paper, you are advised to download these sent in advance and use them as part of your Permitted Materials, either printed off in hard copy, downloaded soft copy or both. You may highlight and annotate the documents as you wish.

YOU MUST NOT SHOW THESE PAGES TO, NOR DISCUSS THEM WITH, ANY OTHER PERSON. IN PARTICULAR, PLEASE NOTE THAT TUTORS CANNOT COMMENT ON ANY ASPECT OF THIS MATERIAL. IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT AS TO INTERPRETATION, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND AS PART OF YOUR ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION THAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKED IN THE EXAMINATION PAPER.

L1490_A

Page 1 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

DOCUMENT 1

Sam Amissah, Company Director of North House, 399 Earlsdon Street, Bristol, Avon, BS9 4RZ, states as follows: 1.

I am the Managing Director of All Purposes Cleaning Limited (“APC”). The company specialises in the retail sale of cleaning products for commercial use.

2.

In January 2020, I was asked to provide nine hundred thousand litres of industrial dishwasher detergent to a new customer, Universal Chemicals (Liverpool) Limited. None of our usual suppliers could help at that time and so after a few searches on the Internet I telephoned Mr John Dempsey, the sales director of Multi Washing Products Limited (“MWP”).

3.

A contract was agreed with MWP and signed on 11 February 2020 (“the Contract”). The relevant details are attached (see DOCUMENT 2 ). I am advised that APC would have made a two hundred and fifty thousand pounds profit had the proposed deal with Universal Chemicals (Liverpool) Limited gone ahead at the suggested price of £750,000.

4.

For ease of reference I will during the remainder of this proof of evidence use the definitions set out in clause 1 of the Contract.

5.

The key to the Contract, so far as I was concerned, was the need for the Product to contain less than five percent chlorine-based bleaching agents. Whilst historically this has been a standard specification in the industry, over the last few years I have seen the market literally flooded with cheap, inferior products with a much higher percentage, especially for commercial detergents. As I had not dealt with MWP before I insisted that the Product should be inspected on delivery. My intention was that the Product should be subject to the most efficient, up to date testing procedure used customarily in Europe.

6.

The Product was delivered to APC’s premises in Hull on 9 March 2020 and inspected by the jointly appointed independent inspector, Mr Obengdwemoh , that day.

7.

I received Mr Obengdwemoh’s written test result in the post on 11 March 2020 (see DOCUMENT 3 attached). As at that stage I had no reason to doubt the Product, I authorised immediate payment to MWP by bank transfer. At that time I was in the middle of negotiating the onward sale of the Product to Universal Chemicals (Liverpool) Limited. I was dealing with their Managing Director, Marie Clark. I faxed to her a copy of Mr Obengdwemoh’s report but she insisted on her own expert (Jim Harvey) sampling the Product. I allowed this and was amazed when she told me that the test showed that the Product contained more than 5% chlorine-based bleaching agent, namely 5.252%. A copy of that test result was sent to me by Marie Clark see DOCUMENT 4 attached).

L1490_A

Page 2 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

8.

The deal with Universal Chemicals (Liverpool) Limited fell through because the Product contained more than 5% chlorine-based bleaching agents. I had to sell as much of the Product as I could on the open market and was ex tremely lucky in the end to get as much as £280,000 for it. In my opinion I could not have got one penny more for it.

9.

I have spoken to Mr Dempsey about this and told him that as far as APC is concerned the customary manner of testing the volume of chlorine was by the EC20 test. Mr Dempsey insists the matter is finished. So far as MWP is concerned APC are bound by Mr Obengdwemoh’s determination.

Signed: Sam Amissah Sam Amissah Dated: 12 November 2020.

L1490_A

Page 3 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

DOCUMENT 2

CONTRACT [Note to Candidates – only the relevant extracts have been produced for the purposes of this examination] Clause 1 Definitions: "the Agreed Place of Delivery" means the Buyer's premises in Hull, England "the Buyer" means All Purposes Cleaning Limited "the Product" means 900,000 litres of industrial dishwasher detergent "the Seller" means Multi Washing Products Limited “the Agreed Price” is the consideration of £500,000 Clause 2 Specification: The Product shall contain less than 5% chlorine-based bleaching agents. Clause 3 Determination of quantity and quality: 3.1 The quantity and quality of the Product shall be determined by an independent inspector at the Agreed Place of Delivery in the customary manner. 3.2 That determination shall be final and binding for both parties provided the determination is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this contract. 3.3. The inspector is to be appointed jointly by the Seller and the Buyer. 3.4 The costs of the inspection are to be shared equally between the Seller and the Buyer.

L1490_A

Page 4 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

DOCUMENT 3

Robert Obengdwemoh BSc Industrial Chemist Hull England Mobile: 0129384756

Date: 9 March 2020 To: Mr J Dempsey of Multi Washing Products Limited To: Mr S Amissah of All Purposes Cleaning Limited Test results on samples of industrial dishwasher detergent at Hull Test used: EC19. Result: the detergent contains no more than 4.972% chlorine-based bleaching agents. I confirm that 900,000 litres have been supplied. My fee note shall follow.

R Obengdwemoh Robert Obengdwemoh

L1490_A

Page 5 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

DOCUMENT 4

Jim Harvey, Bsc, MSc. Industrial Chemist, Liverpool Mobile: 0987654321

18 March 2020 Marie Clark, Universal Chemicals (Liverpool) Limited, 33 The Hill, Liverpool, LV6 7YH.

Dear Marie Clark, I have tested the samples supplied by All Purposes Cleaning Limited. I have also read the report of Mr Obengdwemoh dated 9 March 2020. I would comment as follows. (a) Mr Obengdwehmoh has used an inappropriate test. EC19 is out of date. It lacks sufficient accuracy. Whilst to my knowledge many Hull-based testers and samplers still use EC19, that is simply because the amount of goods passing through their hands is so high. They are told to save costs and so go for the quicker, cheaper answer. (b)

I rigorously applied test EC20 to the samples. This is the test customarily used here in Liverpool and I believe it is now the common recognised standard in the UK and throughout Europe.

(c) The tests revealed that the detergent is composed of 5.252% chlorine-based bleaching agents. Yours sincerely,

Jim Harvey James Andrew Harvey

L1490_A

Page 6 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21

DOCUMENT 5 Disclosure Statement to Legal Advisor of Keeley Cova. Your client has been arrested on suspicion of fraud by false representation to a Mr Christopher Abrahams causing a loss to him of £6,200. A witness statement has been taken from Mr Abrahams in which he describes meeting Miss Cova in July 2020 via an internet dating site. They met up a couple of times between July and August 2020 and Mr Abrahams felt that they had “a connection”. He was aware that Miss Cova was out of work, suffering from an alcohol addiction and living in a hostel in Manchester. The witness statement goes on to say that on the third time they met up in September 2020, Miss Cova asked Mr Abrahams directly if he could “sub her some money” in order to pay off her debts and put down a deposit on a rental flat she had seen as she “wanted to clean herself up and start living life as a normal person”. Mr Abrahams, who is retired and had a small amount of savings, offered to give Miss Cova a loan of £6,200 until Christmas 2020 when she promised her life would be sorted out. He heard nothing from her until December 2020 when Mr Abrahams heard via a friend of his, Mr Ivan Kokovan, that Miss Cova had been boasting at a party about conning a “poor old saddo she had met on the internet out of £6,200”. Mr Abrahams contacted Miss Cova in January, by text three times, asking for re-payment of the loan as Christmas 2020 had now been and gone. Miss Cova had replied to the last saying, “Aha ha. I don’t know what you’re talking about”. A print out of the texts has been obtained by the police. Mr Abrahams now has no savings left and, although he has been on medication for anxiety and depression for a number of years, he now obsesses over the whole incident and has had his level of medication increased. A further witness statement has been obtained from Mr Ivan Kokovan confirming that he had been to a party in December where he recognised Miss Cova from a photo taken by the victim, Mr Abrahams, and that she appeared to be, drunkenly and openly, boasting about the fact that she had obtained £6,200 from the victim.

L1490_A

Page 7 of 7

© The University of Law Limited 2020-21...