COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NORl\1AN MANLEY, HUGH WOODING AND EUGENE DUPUCH LAW SCHOO~S ENTRANCE EXAMINATION

July 13, 2004

PAPER I Contract Real Property Criminal Law Tort Equity

Instructions to Students: (a) (b) (c)

(d)

Time: 3 Hours Answer FIVE questions; one from each of the subject areas. Each Question must be answered on a separate answer booklet. It is not necessary to transcribe the questions you attempt.

PLEASE REMAIN SEATED UNTIL YOUR SCRIPT HAS BEEN COLLECTED

39

LAW OF CONTRACT

1.

Answer EITHER [aJ OR [b] :

[a]

"For a contract to be enforceable, the parties must have agreed on all material terms and it must not be too vague in any material particular".

Critically discuss this proposition.

[b]

In unilateral contracts, once performance of the requested act has begun, the offer cannot be revoked. Discuss.

2.

On December 15, George sends an e-mail from his home computer to Hilda which states: "I heard from Ivan, your cousin, that you are looking for a good squash racket. I have one here that I have used only once, and I would be willing to let you have it for $200. Joan is also interested in buying it so I'll hold this offer open for one week and, as a favour to you, I'll not deal with anyone else during that time." Hilda replies to George on December 17, also bye-mail, "accepting his kind offer." She also writes, "but I am not in funds at the moment. Would you be so kind as to let me pay you for the racquet after the Christmas Holidays? I'm afraid I could not buy it otherwise!" On receiving Hilda's message, George calls Ivan to complain that Hilda is not yet "ready" to buy the racquet and that he will sell it to Joan if she is willing to pay his price. Ivan immediately relates this information to Hilda. Next day, Hilda sends a fax to George at his office accepting his "offer of December 15", but George is not at the office, having taken his annual Christmas leave. That very night, George sells the racquet to Kwesi for $175. Advise Hilda.

,
;

I
I
f

40

LAW OF TORTS
]. John was driving his taxi with Sid as a passenger in the rear. At the top of a steep hill, John lost control of the vehicle and, at the bottom of the hill, it mounted a banle Sid, who was not wearing his seatbelt, was severely injured. John claims that his brakes had failed and that he was not at fault. Discuss.

2.

"The main problem in the law of private nuisance is to strike a balance between the right of the defendant to use his land as he wishes, and the right of the plaintiff to be protected from interference with his enjoyment of his land." Discuss.

REAL PROPERTY
I. In 1989, Oscar, the owner of Ackee Tree House (registered land), told his cousin Martin that he could live in Ackee Tree House until he was able to purchase it from him. Martin moved in that same year. The garden of Ackee Tree House adjoins Guinep Fann. A gully, which floods during heavy rain, runs between the garden of Ackee Tree House and Guinep Farm, demarcating the survey boundary. The owner of Guinep Farm is Don. He intends to use the land for a housing development as soon as he gets planning permission. The following events have occurred since 1989:
(i)

In 1990, after a hurricane washed away some of the garden of Ackee Tree House, Martin excavated part of Guinep Farm and diverted the gully further from the boundary ofAckee Tree House. He was told that he had to do that ifhe had any hope of getting a mortgage since the bank would refuse to give a mortgage because the house appeared threatened by the gully. In 1992, Martin began cultivating vegetables on the part of Guinep Fann which was on his side of the gully. Later that year, he built a chicken coop on the Guinep Fann land and reared chickens. After some ofhis chickens were stolen by thieves and attacked by stray dogs, Martin built a galvanise zinc fence to protect his chickens.

(ii)

(iii)

41

(iv)

In 2003, Don, the owner of Guinep Farm, had the land surveyed. The surveyors hoticed that Ackee Tree House had encroached upon a portion ofGuinep Farm. Don immediately wrote to Martin asking him to get offhis property, remove the galvanise zinc fence and the chicken coop. Martin responded offering Don to buy the portion of Guinep Farm land. Don did not answer the letter. Earlier this year, Don received planning permission and commenced an action for possession of the property and ejectment of Martin from Guinep Farm.

(v)

Advise Martin.

2.

"The test is now the state of the register, not the purchaser's mind". Discuss the extent to which this statement is true in relation to land dealing under registration of titles legislation.

EQUITY
1. "Mareva injuction now sails in calm waters. The principles can now properly be regarded as well settled. Its entitlement and application, its ancillary features and its purpose, its effect on third parties and its limits and dimensions, have all been clearly delineated".

I
1
!

Discuss. 2. From 1995, Domuch managed the Noisemongers band under a ten-year contract of employment. As a result of his management Noisemongers became a "musical force". In December 2003 Domuch, on behalf of Noisemongers, concluded an agreement with Macro Resorts Ltd. for Noisemongers to appear every Wednesday night for a period of one year ending December 2004. It was also agreed that Noisemongers would not perform anywhere else on Wednesday nights for the duration of the agreement. In June 2004, Noisemongers dismissed Domuch and indicated to Macro Resorts Ltd. that they did not intend to "honour the agreement any further" as they wished to be to perfonn wherever they chose on Wednesday nights. Domuch wants his job back. Macro Resorts Ltd. is anxious to prevent Noisemongers from breaking the contract. Domuch and Macro Resorts Ltd. are threatening to take legal action against Noisemongers Advise Noisemongers.
42

CRIMINAL LA
1.

"7

With reference to decided cases, explore the circumstances in which criminal responsibility may arise from an omission to act.

2.

Bill joined Ben's gang of thieves. He knew that Ben had previous convictions for violent crimes. Two months after joining the gang, oen told Bill that he was to join him in a robbery. When Bill objected, Ben told him that unless he did so his anns and legs would be broken and that his children might one day never return home from school. In fear, Bill agreed. The plan was to commit the robbery on Weed with bare fists in an alley while Weed was taking his wages to the bank. On the appointed day, Bill knocked down Weed with a punch to the jaw. However, before the pair could take Weed's money they heard a car siren in an adjacent street. Bill went to investigate and, while he was away, Ben searched through Weep's pockets. Finding nothing to steal, Ben, in anger, took a knife from his pocket and stabbed Weed. When Bill returned, the two men fled the scene. Bill did not realise that Weed had been stabbed. Weed died from his wound. Discuss.

43

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NORMAN MANLEY, HUGH WOODING AND EUGENE DUPUCH LAW SCHOOLS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
July 14, 2004

PAPER II
Group I: Company Law Revenue Law Family Law Administrative Law Jurisprudence International Law Comparative Law Labour Law Administration of Trusts & Estates

Group II:

Instructions to Students: (a) (b) (c) (d) Time: 3 Hours Answer THREE questions; at least ONE from each Group. Each Question must be answered on a separate answer booklet.
It is not necessary to transcribe the questions you attempt.

PLEASE REMAIN SEATED UNTIL YOUR SCRIPT HAS BEEN COLLECTED.

45

GROUPl

COMPANY LAW
1. "The principle of Salomon v. Salomon represents a formidable but not an insunnountable obstacle for persons desiring to ascribe criminal and civil liability to those behind the corporate shield." Discuss.

2.

Answer EITHER (a) OR (b) (a) "The statement that 'the attributes of a preference share are limited and defined on its birth', as stated by Lord Justice Farwell in Will v. United Lankat Plantations Co. Ltd., arguably explains why, in contrast to ordinary shares, the preference share is a less secure form of investment." Discuss. (b) Fishermen's Company Limited (FCL), is a private company engaged in the manufacture of fishing tackle and rods. FCL has an authorised share capital of $10 million and an issued share capital of $1 million. Richard and Althea, two minority shareholders, seek your advice on the following issues: (i) whether the board of directors of FCL owes a duty towards its employees, since FCL is desirous of firing 80 percent of its workforce in an attempt to rationalize its operations;

(ii)

whether the minority shareholders have any recourse against the directors of FCL, since it has been discovered that the board recently passed a resolution authorising the issue of7 million shares for the purpose ofthwarting a hostile take-over bid by Shark Company Ltd., an existing shareholder, who already owns 15% of the shares of FCL.

Advise.

46

REVENUE'LAW
1. UDespite the celebrated statement that each man has a right to arrange his own affairs so as to attract the least amount oftax, (Duke ofWestminster v. IRe 1925) it would be dangerous on the part ofthose who advise on elaborate tax avoidance schemes to assume that there has not been a significant change in approach."
6

Critically analyse this statement 2. Joint Select Construction Ltd (JSC) is a manufacturing company specialising in the manufacture of cement blocks. In the 1970's, JSC purchased for investment purposes a parcel of land for $1 million. For several years JSC carried on a profitable business, However, after September 11, there has been a slight decline in sales.

In January 2002, High Stakes Ltd., one of JSC's best customers, infoITIled JSC that they
were likely to close their doors because of intense competition. Immediately, JSC:
(i)

decided to sell the parcel of land for $40 million; expended $500,000 in 'refurbishing' the show room by replacing the wooden floor with marble and adding gold fixtures; loaned High Stakes Ltd. $1 million at a favourable rate of interest.

(ii)

(iii)

High Stakes Ltd. has not yet repaid any interest on the $1 million loan and Inland Revenue has written to JSC contending that the profit of$39 million is a "profit or gain as a result of trade" and disallowed JSC's claim to deduct the $500,000 expended on the showroom. Advise JSC.

------------COMPARATIVE LAW

1.

With reference to the French Civil Code and "fa jurisprudence", explain the effect of each of the following on the validity of a contract in French law:
1. 2. 3. 4. Lesion; Erreur in substantia; Dol; and Violence.

2.

Compare and contrast the French doctrine of cause and the common law doctrine of consideration.

INTERNATIONAL LAW
1.

At the end of a three year civil war, the state of Check is divided into two. The northern half retains the name "Check" and the tiny sou~hern half emerges as the new sovereign state of "Slaw." Slaw has a territorial area of approximately 1000 square kilometres and a population of 250,000 persons. Although firmly ruled by a revolutionary leader, the people of Slaw still face challenges from some remaining Check resistance fighters. These fighters detonate bombs in the capital of Slaw on a fairly regular basis. Check authorities recognise the existence of this new state and enter into diplomatic and trade relations with it. An extradition treaty is negotiated between Check and Slaw. No other state recognises Slaw. A third state, the Unified Kingdom, has not formally recognised Slaw. It has recognised, and continues to recognise, Check. The Big Company, a private construction company from the Unified Kingdom, enters into a lucrative contract with the Slaw Airport Authority (SAA) to build an international airport in Slaw. Although legally independent from the state, the SAA was created by a special Slaw Post-Conflict Reconstruction Act. After the first phase of construction is completed, the SAA defaults on its contractual payments. The Big Company brings a suit against the SAA for breach of contract in the municipal courts of the Unified Kingdom. The Unified Kingdom's legal system is identical to that of the United Kingdom.
Critically discuss the legal difficulties that the B!g Company may face in bringing its claim.

2.

The State of Dill amends its Criminal Code so as to make the crime of littering punishable by flogging. Dill also amends Section 15 of its Bill of Rights, the section guaranteeing the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment. The new paragraph that is inserted in Section 15 states: "For the purposes of this section flogging in its traditional forms does not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment." International human rights groups, including the Anti-Flogging Coalition, are outraged by the Dill legislative changes. When a citizen is charged with the crime of littering, the Anti-Flogging Coalition obtains intervener status to make arguments before the Dill High Court. The Anti-Flogging Coalition lawyers argue that Dill's laws clearly violate its international human rights obligations. They point to provisions of two international human rights treaties to which Dill is a party that have been interpreted as expressly prohibiting flogging. Neither of these treaties has been incorporated into Dill's legal system. They also argue that such practices are prohibited under general customary international law. The Anti-Flogging Coalition lawyers support these arguments by referring to the writings of several scholars.

48