Mooting Assessment a Contract Can Essay

Download this Essay in word format (.doc)

Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formatting

Excerpt from Essay:

On the strength of this, the university can argue that it has fully upheld its responsibilities and the terms of the legally binding contract it has signed with Ms Edwards, with full disclosure and with full knowledge by both parties.

Ms Edwards, on the other hand, is planning to breach her own obligations in terms of the contract, even knowing that the institution is a directly affected party, especially in terms of potential damage to the property it owns. She is further in violation of her contract by not planning to notify the university and by planning to gain financially from this breach of contract. Hence, the university could argue for its own legal standing in terms of the contract as opposed to that of Ms Edwards.

Finally, the university can also argue that Ms Edwards already experiences significant financial gain by using the premises of the university. Her weekly rental fee is £20 less than for equivalent private rental property in the area. This provides her not only with financial advantage, but also with the advantage of proximity to her place of study and the physical resources that go with such study. If the university were therefore to argue terms of fairness and reasonableness, the contract might reasonably include terms that are somewhat more specific and more stringent than those for a contract signed for private accommodation. To therefore breach the contract to gain financially for the purpose of financing an endeavour such as a holiday can only be in breach of the original contract.

According to the terms for property letting and management in the UK, negligence can be defined as "failure to take proper care"

. Before claiming that the university is liable under this definition, the terms of the contract need to be investigated carefully, along with the actions perpetrated by each party, as well as the conditions surrounding the contract and its terms.

First, Ms Edwards benefits both financially and situationally from her use of the university's property for accommodation purposes. She saves £20 per week in rental fees. She is closer to her place of study and resources used in her work than she would have been when using private accommodation. These advantages carry with them certain conditions, as stated in the contract. These conditions have been violated by Ms Edwards' plan to have a party for her personal financial gain. Further, the university openly provided the condition of non-liability for personal property damage, which includes Ms Edwards' MP3 player. The conditions, as set out in the contract, have been entered into legally by both parties, implying that both accepted reasonableness in terms of UCTA 1977.

When comparing the actions by the two parties in terms of the contract and its conditions, as well as the timing of entering the contract and that of Ms Edwards' complaint, one can then find that the university is not liable for either the damage to Ms Edwards' MP3 player and that, by association, term (c) of its contract cannot be deemed unreasonable. In fact, one can further find that it is rather more reasonable to expect Ms Edwards to take due care to prevent damage to her own private property. Further, the university never attempted to conceal any of the conditions associated for using its premises as accommodation and is therefore within its rights to expect the right to appeal. It is therefore recommended that the university be allowed to appeal in terms of section (c) of its contract.


Chapter 11: The Tort of Negligence. Retrieved from:

Lawdit. (2011, Apr. 1). The Basics of Contract Explained. Retrieved from:

Letlink. (2012). Residential Letting & Property Management in the UK. Retrieved from:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Retrieved from:

The Basics of Contract Explained.

UCTA 1977.

Chapter 11: The Tort of Negligence.


Cite This Essay:

"Mooting Assessment A Contract Can" (2013, January 15) Retrieved October 27, 2016, from

"Mooting Assessment A Contract Can" 15 January 2013. Web.27 October. 2016. <>

"Mooting Assessment A Contract Can", 15 January 2013, Accessed.27 October. 2016,

Other Documents Pertaining To This Topic

  • Mooting Assessment Problem Solving the

    This is valid except otherwise provided for in the contract. Even if, provided for, the provision, further, need to pass the reasonability requirement. Further credence to asserting that the clause contained in the contract had, in effect upon signing, become binding to the Landlord and the Tenant, get support from Section 3(2) (bi) UTCCA of 19996. The section stipulates that one party to the contract cannot provide that not provided

  • Mooting Assessment Problem Solving

    Junior Appellant The term (c) "The University accepts no liability in negligence for property damage suffered by students on University premises" is reasonable under UCTA 11(1)[footnoteRef:1] because it was a term to hold all parties accountable in cases of damage due to negligence. Each party would be required to exercise reasonable care in performance of the contract[footnoteRef:2]. This does not relieve the university from liability in case of negligence of its

  • Ms Edwards Is a Student

    Edwards could not have queried the university. As indicated with the instance of the Mp3 player, exception may exist. Given the above, we have shown how the university has a reasonable claim. Secondly, there are also specific guidelines regarding how the definition of 'reasonableness' can be defined. . The reasonableness test is the following: • the term is required to be a fair and reasonable one so that one can include in the

  • Challenge of Managing All Stakeholders in the Context of a Merger...

    Managing All Stakeholders in the Context of a Merger Process Review of the Relevant Literature Types of Mergers Identifying All Stakeholders in a Given Business Strategic Market Factors Driving Merger Activity Selection Process for Merger Candidates Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations The Challenge of Managing All Stakeholders in the Context of a Merger Process Mergers and acquisitions became central features of organizational life in the last part of the 20th century, particularly as organizations seek to establish and

  • Gilbert Law Summaries Constitutional Law

    This essay provides a brief overview of several of the key factors in conflict of laws, including the areas where choice of law is likely to be at issue. Domicile Domicile is one of the key factors in choice of law. Domicile is not the same as location. Instead, domicile is a legal fiction connecting a person to a location for a specific purpose. Domicile impacts jurisdiction and choice of law.

  • Ethics the Kolcraft Travel Lite Crib

    Contemporary agency theory dictates that managers only act in the interest of maximizing shareholder (owner) wealth (Roberts, 2004). This standard can be reasonably viewed as the minimum ethical standard that the president of a company should have. Taking this view, Thomas Koltun is essentially in damage control mode. Because of the mistakes of the company in the past, Koltun is faced with significant downside risk from mishandling this situation. It

  • Goal of Learning How to

    Couples were surveyed again at six-month intervals for a total of six assessments, and were offered a small stipend for their participation. Measures included marital satisfaction, which was controlled for in the current research. To measure marital satisfaction, the Semantic Differential was used. The Semantic Differential uses a 7-point scale to rate perceptions of the marriage. Physical aggression was measured with the Violence subscale of Form N. Of the Conflict

Read Full Essay
Copyright 2016 . All Rights Reserved