Answering Commercial Law questions

Now that your exams are closing i n - answering the exam question is your next hurdle. You need to remember that the examiners do not set out to fail you - on the contrary - they want to pass you. The main object of exams is to see if you could use the rules we have learn to address issues that are raised in the question. By demonstrating that you can, you would have proven that you understood the rule and able to use it in a given situation.

The exam will consist of a series of questions and each question would have a series of issues which you must address using the rules/laws you have learn.


Lets take a close look at a simple question:-

-------------------------------------------------------

Semester 2 2008 Q5(a)

Maggie wrote a series of letters to her brother Jason who resided in the UK. Maggie invites Jason to move to Singapore and live with her "rent free for the rest of your life". Jason quits his studies, sells his car and busy a ticket to Singapore. After several months, following a dispute, Maggie orders Jason to move out. Jason has to rent an apartment which he cannot afford.

REQUIRED:-

Advise Jason using common law principles, whether he has any contractual rights against Maggie.

(5 Marks)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Your exam will have a total of 80 marks and you will have 180 minutes to attempt all questions. So using simple maths, each mark will allow you to spend 2.25min. A 5 mark question will allow you to spend no more than 5 x 2.25min = 11.25min. The question is then - what can you write in 11min plus?

Answer:

For Jason to enforce Maggie's promise, it is necessary that he establishes a legally binding agreement with her. There are however 2 potential problems posed in this question.

The first is whether between Maggie and Jason - whether there was ever an intention to create a legal relationship. Without such an intention, the law will not enforce the promise. According to the case of Balfour v Balfour in cases of social or domestic agreement, the law presumes that parties never intended to create a legal relationship. This presumption however can be rebutted. The determination is by asking the reasonable person and taking all the circumstances of the case - whether an intention exist. (Chwee Chin Keong v Digiland Mall.com Pte Ltd) Of course where there is commercial benefits, the courts have been ready to assume that even if the agreement was domestic or social, that there is an intention to contract - Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im

In this case, whilst it appears that Jason had left the UK to live with her sister in Singapore,w e are not told of the real reason. If the sister had some commercial value in having Jason live with her such as if she was sick and needed assistance or if Jason had special skills which she would have profited from commercially, then the presumption may be rebutted. The test is to take in all the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, we would need to have more facts to help us understand whether the presumption can be rebutted.

The second issue is if it was true that Jason had come to look after Maggie, then would that be sufficient consideration in itself. According to Eastwood v Kenyon the performance of a purely moral responsibility is not sufficient consideration. It may be possible that Jason had the moral responsibility of looking after his sister and doing just that may be insufficient consideration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note : the task is to determine the legal issue and relevant legal rules. Fining a definite factual conclusion such as whether there is or there is not an agreement is not the main objective because in many of the question there may simply be insufficient facts to help us. We must however offer these suggestions to the examiner.

I will try and provide more examples later on.

Good Luck.

SK