Law Assignment Help in the UK – Expert Support for Students

IRAC - Offer and Acceptance: Issue - whether an advertisement was an offer or invitation to treat. Rule - Partridge v Crittenden treats ads as invitations. Application - language indicated intention to be bound on clear performance similar to Carlill which supports unilateral offer. Conclusion - likely an offer where promise is conditional on performance and intention is explicit.

Consideration - Practical Benefit: Williams v Roffey Bros allows practical benefit as good consideration where there is no duress and promisor gains efficiency or avoidance of penalty. Apply facts to identify concrete benefits like avoiding delay costs.

Remedies - Damages vs Specific Performance: Damages aim to place claimant in expectation position subject to remoteness in Hadley v Baxendale and mitigation. Specific performance is discretionary and suited to unique goods or land. For generic goods, damages are adequate, so equitable relief is unlikely.

Homicide Mens Rea: Direct intent per Moloney or oblique intent per Woollin where death is a virtual certainty and appreciated as such. If only foresight of risk, consider gross negligence manslaughter using Adomako test.

Self Defence vs Duress: Self defence requires necessity and reasonable force under Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Duress unavailable for murder per Howe. Apply facts to show immediacy, escape opportunity, and proportionality.

Theft Structure: Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive per s1. Use Ivey for dishonesty standard. Apply s2 beliefs, s3 appropriation, s5 belonging to another, and s6 intention analysis.

Duty of Care: Apply Caparo three stage test - foreseeability, proximity, and fair just and reasonable. Use Robinson to avoid pure novel duty expansion where authority exists.

Donoghue v Stevenson Note: Established neighbour principle and modern product liability foundation. Emphasise duty to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure your neighbour who is closely and directly affected.

Nuisance vs Rylands: Nuisance involves unreasonable interference with land use balancing locality and sensitivity. Rylands imposes stricter liability for non natural use and escape. Show when each applies on exam facts.

Sovereignty vs Rule of Law: Present Diceyan view then modern constraints such as HRA interpretation and devolution. Argue practical limits through political and constitutional conventions.

Judicial Review Grounds: Illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Include legitimate expectation and proportionality where rights engaged. Apply to decision maker powers and consultation fairness.

Miller Note: Supreme Court confirmed limits on prerogative where it frustrates statute. Outline constitutional principles and remedy granted.

Directors Duties: s171 to s177 including promoting success under s172 with stakeholder factors. Apply facts to conflicts and disclosure.

Veil Piercing: Rare per Prest v Petrodel. Prefer statutory or agency routes. Conclude that misuse alone is insufficient without evasion principle.

Minority Remedies: Derivative claim addresses wrongs to company. Unfair prejudice under s994 addresses member interests. Choose based on remedy sought and proof available.

Direct Effect: Treaty provisions and regulations can have horizontal effect. Directives are generally vertical only unless implemented or via indirect effect. Use Van Gend, Marshall, and Faccini Dori.

Cassis and Keck: Cassis established mutual recognition and rule of reason. Keck carved out certain selling arrangements outside Article 34 where non discriminatory in law and fact.

Services Scenario: Identify restriction, justification, and proportionality. Consider consumer protection and necessity of measure.

Article 8 Balancing: Interference must be in accordance with law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. Apply proportionality and less restrictive means analysis.

Proportionality Steps: Legitimate aim, rational connection, minimal impairment, and fair balance. Support with Bank Mellat reasoning style.

Positive Obligations: State may need to take steps to secure effective respect for rights such as protective policing. Assess resources and margin of appreciation.

Sources Overview: Article 38 ICJ Statute lists treaties, custom, general principles, and subsidiary means. Distinguish opinio juris and state practice for custom. Apply to facts on conflicting norms.

Use of Force: Article 2(4) prohibition with self defence in Article 51 subject to necessity and proportionality. Consider collective security measures and Security Council resolutions.

Best Interests: Apply welfare checklist including wishes and feelings, needs, effect of change, age, sex, background, harm, capabilities of parents, and range of powers.

Financial Remedies: Consider s25 factors such as income, earning capacity, needs, contributions, standard of living, disability, and conduct in rare cases. Emphasise needs and sharing principles.

Easements: Creation by express grant, implied grant, prescription. Apply characteristics from Re Ellenborough Park. Assess scope and excessive use.

Lease vs Licence: Exclusive possession for a term at a rent points to lease per Street v Mountford. Sham labels do not defeat substance. Apply to facts on services and control.

Adverse Possession: LRA 2002 schedule 6 requires factual possession and intention to possess with notice procedure. Apply timelines and registered land rules.

Three Certainties: Intention, subject matter, and objects. Use Knight v Knight and identify any conceptual or evidential uncertainty. Conclude on validity and potential resulting trust.

Constructive Trust vs Estoppel: Constructive trust focuses on common intention and detrimental reliance. Estoppel requires assurance, reliance, and detriment with flexible remedies. Choose based on expectations and proportionality.

Fiduciary Duty Breach: No conflict and no profit rules. Account of profits and equitable compensation available. Consider informed consent and disclosure.

Unfair Dismissal: Qualifying service, potentially fair reason, and reasonableness under s98 ERA. Apply Burchell test for misconduct and band of reasonable responses.

Discrimination: Identify protected characteristic, less favorable treatment or provision criterion or practice, comparator, and justification for indirect claims. Remedies include declaration, compensation, and recommendations.

Redundancy: Genuine redundancy situation, fair selection, consultation, and alternative employment. Consider redundancy payments and procedural fairness.

Unfair Terms: Assess reasonableness under UCTA for liability clauses and fairness under CRA for consumer contracts. Consider transparency and prominence of terms.

Competition Outline: Identify agreement or abuse, define market, assess object or effect, and apply exemptions or efficiency defences.

GDPR Lawful Bases: Consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, and legitimate interests. Map processing purpose to the most appropriate basis and assess necessity and transparency.