QUESTION 1

Seng Li took his five-year-old daughter, Janelle, in the Chang Pools, a local Swimming
and Aquatic Centre, to enjoy an afternoon of fun on the slides, which the facility offered.
At the entry to the slides section of the Swimming and Aquatic Centre, a lifeguard asked
Seng Li about Janelles age. On learning Janelles age, the lifeguard advised Seng Li
that a rule for the use of the slides is that a parent or guardian of a child under six years
of age must wait for the child in the pool at the bottom of the slide and to render any
assistance to the child if necessary.
Janelle enjoyed a few runs down the slide. As required under the aquatic centres rules,
Seng Li waited for Janelle at the bottom of the slide and ensured that she was safe each
time she splashed into the pool.
However, on one occasion, as Seng Li was helping Janelle at the foot of the slide, another
child hurdled down the slide only seconds after Janelle. The other childs foot made
contact with Seng Lis left eye. The contact caused a rupture to the cornea of his eye.
Seng Li was taken to the hospital and underwent emergence surgery. The damage to his
eye was not repairable. The surgeons advised Seng Li that he would suffer severe loss of
vision in his left eye.
As a result of the injury, Seng Li incurred number of medical costs and is now no longer
able to do his pre-injury work. He has taken on alternative employment, which pays less
than his previous job.
Seng Li claims that The Chang Pools failed adequately to supervise the use of the slide
by children and failed to control when a child is allowed to descend from the top of the
slide.
RE: Advise Seng Li as to his common laws in tort.
DEFINE NEGLIENCE ISSUE; CAN SL SUE THE POOL FOR NEGLIGENCE.
POOL FOR NEGLIGENCE
IS THERE A DOC
SPANDECK FF. THAT IF THERE IS NO SUPERVISION SOMEONE MIGHT BE
INJURED SATISFIED
PROXIMITY SERVICE PROVIDER AND CUSTOMER DONOGHUE V
STEVENSON
IS THERE ANY POLICY THAT NEGATES THE DUTY NO FLOODGATES TO
LITIGATION NO INDEFINITE OR UNLIMITED CLAIMS WILL ARISE
BREACH OF DUTY STANDARD OF CARE POOL HAS FALLEN SHORT OF
STANDARDS A REASONABLE POOL MGMT WILL ENSURE REASONABLE
SUPERVISION LEVEL OF SKILL- NOT SATISFIDED LIKELIHOOD AND
SERIOUS OR INJURY HIGH CHANCE COSTS OF PREVENTION LOW
LIFEGUARD NEEDS TO BE PRESENT LOW COSTS AND HIGH RISKS
PREVENTIVE MEASURES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN
RESULTING DAMAGE BUT FOR TEST SATISFIED... REMOTENESS INJURY IS
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE BREACH NOT
REMOTE IF PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION WORSENS INJURY EGG
SHELL SKULL RULE NO DEFENCE

ANY DEFENCES
ASSUMPTION OF RISKS OT RELEVANT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIENCE
POSSIBLE IF YES, IT AFFECTS THE QUANTUM OF DAMAGES THAT SL WILL
GET
REMEDY DAMAGES

QUESTION 2
Lee Wing was running late for work. While racing down Ang Mo Kio Avenue, he drove
through a red light and was detected by a red light camera.
He received a fine in the mail and was notified that the driver of the motor vehicle will
be penalized with 12 demerit points.
Lee Wing has already accrued a number of demerit points from previous road traffic
law violations and will now lose his driving license if the 12 additional demerit points
and registered against him.
Lee Wing offered his friend Tung Sek $500 if Tung Sek agrees to notify police that he
was the driver of the car when it was detected driving through the red light.
Tung Sek agrees to do this and notifies the police that he was the driver of the car at the
relevant time. The police accept that Tung Sek was the driver. As a result, Lee Wing to
pay him the $500 as promised, but Lee Wing refuses to pay.
RE: Advise Tung Sek as to his legal rights for payment from Lee Wing.
ILLEGAL CONSTRACTS CONTRACT VOID AT FORMATION ILLEGALITY
CONTRARY TO TRAFFIC LAWS OF SINGAPORE NOT ENFORCEABLE

QUESTION 3
Sumit worked as a cleaner and had a small but regular weekly salary. She had some
business knowledge thanks to her business studies. Against the advice of her legal
advisor, she mortgaged her home for $100,000 as security for a loan from the Lingtul
Bank. She used the money to finance a loan to a struggling business, Ahmedian Ltd,
which employed her husband.
The Lingtul Bank was also the banker for the owner of Ahmedian Ltd and for the
business of Ahmedian Ltd. The manager of the Lingtul Bank was aware that the
business could not be saved. The manager of Lingtul knew that Sumit was planning to
loan the money to Ahmedian Ltd but did not warn Sumit that Ahmedian Ltd could not
be saved.
After a few months Sumits employers business fails, and as a result, Sumit cannot
afford to pay the loan payments. The now mortgaged fell into arrears and now Lingtul
Bank is attempting to enforce the mortgage against Sumit and take away her home.
RE: Advise Sumit of any legal defence she may have to the banks claim.

UNDUE INFLUENCE HUSBAND AND WIFE NO PRESUMPTION ASSUME

THAT WIFE PLACED CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN HER HUSBAND HUSBAND
MANAGES THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE FAMILY PRESUMED UNDUE
INFLUENCE BANK IS AWARE OF HER PLANS BANK KEEPS QUIET
CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDUE INFLUENCEBANK AT FAULT
THE MORTGAGE MIGHT BE UNENFORCEABLE VOIDABLE
UNCONSCIONABILITY UNFAIR BARGAINING STRENGTH MANIFEST
INEQUALITY IN BARGAINING STRENGTH BANK WAS AWARE OF SITUATION
BUT KEPT SILENT AMADIOS CASE SUMIT SPECIAL DISABILITY NOT
VERY LITERATE LOW EDUCATION AGE ILLNESS? ARGUABLE
MORTGAGE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM SHE SOUGHT
INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE BUT DECIDED TO ACT AGAINST IT BANK MAY
BE IN BETTER POSITION THAN IN THE ARMADIOS CASE
ANY MISREPRESENTATION BY BANK SILENT NON-EST FACTUM NOT A
DEFENCE FOR HER CONCLUSION MORTAGE IS ENFORCEABLE BY BANK

QUESTION 4 NEGLIGENCE
Fizzy Fanto Pty Ltd manufacture a soft drink named Fanto. The factory where Fanto is
manufactured is old and there have been complaints that rats have been seen in the
factory. The management has spent a significant amount of money training staff in
quality control.
Jenny buys a can of Fanto from her local shop. She shares the Fanto with her friend
Pedro. Predo has a drink of the Fanto and feels himself swallowing something strange.
He pours the Fanto down the sink and sees a decomposed rat in the liquid. Pedro
becomes seriously ill from poisoning and incurs medical expenses. Pedros mother takes
time off from her job to look after Pedro. Consequently, Pedros mother loses two
months of wages.
DUTY OF CARE FF SATISFIED PROXIMITY CONSUMER AND
MANUFACTURER DONOGHUE V STEVENSON...
NO POLICY ISSUES
BREACHSTANDARDLEVEL OF SKILL MANUFACTURER HAS FALLEN
SHORT OF STANDARD LIKELIHOOD HIGH SERIOUS INJURY POSSIBLE
COSTS OF PREVENTION HIGH RISKS MAY BE HIGH COSTS PREVENTIVE
MEASURES MUST STILL BE TAKEN
BUT FOR TEST SATISFIED
INJURY NOT TOO REMOTE
FF IS LIABLE TO PEDRO
PEDROS MOTHER LOSS OF WAGES PEDRO IS AN ADULT THIS LOSS OF
MOTHERS WAGES IS TOO REMOTE CANNOT BE CLAIMED
STATUTORY RIGHTSOGA CONTRACTUAL RIGHT JENNY BOUGHT THE
DRINK NOT HIM HE HAS NO RIGHTS UNDER SOGA CAN JENNY SUE
RETAILER BREACH OF S14(2)/(3) SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS
FOR PURPOSEBREACH PRESENT BUT SHE SUFFERED NO LOSS PEDRO
THE THIRD PARTY SUFFERED THE LOSS PEDRO HAS NO PRIVITY OF
CONTRACT WITH RETAILER

QUESTION 5
Phuong and Constance enter into negotiations for the purchase of Phuongs large house
and gardens in Sentosa. Constance has always wanted a house with a big garden and a
pool and is very keen on Phuongs house. However, she is concerned about not being
able to maintain a garden because of water restrictions. She also is worried that the local
planning authority will not approve her application to install a pool.
Phuong advises Constance that the land has a natural water course under the ground
which she can access via an old well. He also advises her that there will be no problem
with the local planning authoritys consent to the pool. Phuong knows both of these
statements to be false.
Three days after this discussion, Constance signs a standard form written contract to
buy the house from Phuong. There is no written term in the contract in relation to the
natural course or the local planning authoritys consent to the pool.
One month later, Constance moves into her new house and discovers that there is no
natural water course and that the local planning authority will not approve any more
pool installations in Sentosa.

CAN CONSTANCE SET ASIDE THE CONTRACT AND CLAIM REMEDIES DEFINE
MISREPRESENTATION
IDENTIFY THE FALSE STATEMENTS FIRST NATURAL WATER COURSE
UNDERGROUND PLANNING APPROVAL BOTH STATEMENTS WERE FALSE
THEY ARE NOT PUFF NOT EXAGGERATIONS NOT OPINION EITHER BISSET
V WILKINSON P AS OWNER OF PROPERTY HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE
IS THERE INDUCEMENT STATUEMENTS WERE MATERIAL TO CONSTANCE
IMPORTANT TO HER TEST HERE IS SUBJECTIVE SHE REPLIED ON
STATEMENTS SHE SUFFERED LOSS MISREPRESENTATION IS PROVEN
TYOES OF MISREPRESENTATION OUTLINE BRIEFLY TYPE AND REMEDIES
FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATION STATEMENTS MADE DISHONESTLY
REMEDY RECISSION AND DAMAGES FOR TORT OF DECEIT
NO BARS TO RESCISSION
SHE CAN CANCEL OR GET OUT OF CONTRACT AND CLAIM DAMAGES
(IF THERE IS VERBAL ASSURANCES, PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER COLLATERAL
CONTRACT)

QUESTION 6

Prakesh is a consumer shopping at his local department store. He tells the store assistant
that he wants to buy a MP3 player that can store up to one thousand songs The store
assistant shows Prakesh a MP3 player that is pre-packaged in a box. The description on
the package about the MP3 player provides that: This MP3 player will provide you
with a memory of over one thousand songs. The store assistant confirms that the MP3
player will be able to store over one thousand songs.
Prakesh takes the MP3 player to the cash register and the store assistant points to a sign
that reads: Goods sold are not returnable. Prakesh pays $250 for the MP3 player and
takes it home.
When Prakesh downloads his music onto the MP3 player, he discovers it only can store a
total of 500 songs. Additionally, the volume on the MP3 player is very soft.
Prakesh is not happy and returns to the department store seeking to return the MP3
player and get his money back. The store assistant points to the above sign and explains
that the store does not take returns or give customers their money back.
WHAT RIGHTS DOES P, THE CONSUMER, HAVE?
B TO C CONTRACT
THIS IS A CONTRACT THAT COMES UNDER THE SALE OF GOODS ACT
PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN THE MP3 MP3 IS TANGIBLE GOODS MONEY
CONSIDERATION PAID
SOGA HAS IMPLIED STATUTORY TERMSS13, 14(2)/(3) BUT THE RELEVANT
PROVISION IS S13 SALE BY DESCRIPTION
THE MP3 IS NOT AS DESCRIBED 1000 SONGS BUT ONLY 500 SONGS CAN BE
STORED BEALE V TAYLOR
CONSUMER, P, CAN REJECT THE PLAYER, TERMINATE CONTRACT AND SUE FOR
DAMAGES
PLAYER IS VERY SOFT S14(2) NOT SATISFACTORY QUALITY THIS IS A
NEW PRODUCT HIGH EXPECTATIONS PERFECTION DESIRED ROGERS V
PARISH
BUT EC CLAUSE HINDERS, PS ACTION
IS EC VALID
IS IT INCORPORATED NO SIGNATURE INVOLVED NOTICE IT WAS AT THE
COUNTER IS THIS REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT ON BALANCE, P WAS
AWARE OF EC BEFORE CONTRACT WAS CONCLUDED IT IS INCORPORATED
NO ISSUES OF CONSTRUCTION; NO UNUSUAL FACTORS
BUT DOES EC VIOLATE UCTA
THIS IS A CONSUMER SALE IMPLIED TERMS CANNOT BE EXCLUDED S6(2),
UTCA
ALTERNATIVELY, DISCUSS MISREPRESENTATION VERY BRIEFLY
Q1 : NEGLIGENCE
Q2 : SALE OF GOODS / VITIATING FACTORS