Stine, the owner of an office building, and Mering concluded a three-year leasing agreemen

company Imp Ltd through which he operates a management consultancy business. He also owns all the shares in Jet Ltd through which he conducts an investment business.

When Greg learns that Huge plc is going to make a take-over bid for Kop plc he arranges for Jet Ltd to buy a large number of shares in Kop plc on the London Stock Exchange on which it makes a large profit when it sells them after the takeover bid is announced. He then arranges for Jet Ltd to transfer the profit to Imp Ltd as the charge for supposed consultancy work. The money is then transferred to Greg through the declaration of dividends by Imp Ltd.

Required:

Analyse the above conduct from the perspective of criminal law paying particular attention to the issues of:

(a) insider dealing; and (5 marks)

(b) money laundering. (5 marks)

to the car park just in front of the payment machine there is a large sign in fl uorescent red paint which states:

‘These premises are not staffed by our employees and may be dangerous. Clients use these facilities strictly at their own risk and Bash Ltd accept no liability whatsoever for any damage or injury sustained by either those using this facility or their vehicles or property, no matter how caused.’

Andy was aware of the sign, but had never paid much attention to it. However, one day he returned to his car to fi nd that it had been badly damaged by a towing vehicle driven by an employee of Bash Ltd. Whilst on his way to the car park offi ce to complain he was hit by the same towing vehicle, which was clearly being driven dangerously by one of Bash Ltd’s employees. As a result, not only was his car severely damaged, but he suffered a broken leg and was off work for eight weeks.

Bash Ltd has accepted that its employee was negligent on both counts but denies any liability, relying on the exclusion clause.

Required:

On the understanding that the clause excluding Bash Ltd’s liability was incorporated into its contract with Andy,advise Andy whether there is any action he can take against Bash Ltd.(10 marks)

it.

(10 marks)

(a) In relation to the law of contract, define and explain consideration. (3 marks)

(b) Explain the following statements regarding consideration:

(i) consideration must be sufficient but does not have to be adequate; (3 marks)

(ii) past consideration is not good consideration. (4 marks)

In relation to company law, explain:

(a) the limitations on the use of company names; (4 marks)

(b) the tort of ‘passing off’; (4 marks)

(c) the role of the company names adjudicators under the Companies Act 2006. (2 marks)

In relation to the law of contract, distinguish between and explain the effect of:

(a) a term and a mere representation; (3 marks)

(b) express and implied terms, paying particular regard to the circumstances under which terms may be implied in contracts. (7 marks)

een:

(a) the literal approach, including the golden rule; and (5 marks)

(b) the purposive approach, including the mischief rule. (5 marks)

al for an international accountancy body’s award. The manual was to cover the period from September 2008 till June 2009, and it was a term of the contract that the text be supplied by 30 June 2008 so that it could be printed in time for September. By 30 May, Arti had not yet started on the text and indeed he had written to Bee Ltd stating that he was too busy to write the text.

Bee Ltd was extremely perturbed by the news, especially as it had acquired the contract to supply all of the

accountancy body’s study manuals and had already incurred extensive preliminary expenses in relation to the publication of the new manual.

Required:

In the context of the law of contract, advise Bee Ltd whether they can take any action against Arti.

(10 marks)

squalification Act 1986.(10 marks)

pplier of specialist metals under the name of Era Ltd.

Last year Dull plc entered into a contract to buy a large consignment of metal from Era Ltd. Caz attended the board meeting that approved the contract and voted in favour of it, without revealing any link with Era Ltd.

Required:

Analyse the situation explaining any potential liability that Caz may have in relation to the sale of the metal to

Dull plc by Era Ltd.(10 marks)