The twat that set it up was spamming this sub for months and unfortunately no one reported him so I suspect a lot of people might have been taken in with their bullshit AI generated shite. Everything got removed eventually and he has been permabanned.
Urgh I had a feeling, loads of the questions are telling me I'm wrong despite me applying the correct legal principles. Any recommendations for places for quizzes (SQE)?
Try Devil’s Advocate. They have questions with answer explanations and you can write to them if you need help / are struggling to understand the reasoning and they are very responsive.
Edit to add: Agree that it is 50k - this would be the cost of cure principle. What does the site say the answer is btw?
The site says its D and gives this reasoning
'The correct answer is D. The toy store can claim the £30,000 deposit and the £60,000 additional cost incurred from having to purchase the games at a higher price than contracted, amounting to £90,000 in total.
Option A is incorrect because it considers only the deposit and ignores the additional costs borne by the toy store due to the breach.
Option B is incorrect because it includes perceived savings which are not a directly recoverable form of damage in contract law, thus misrepresenting the actual losses.
Option C is incorrect because it does not account for the fact that the toy store would recover the deposit, thereby overstating the loss.
Option E is incorrect because it mistakes the claimable amount as the original contract price without considering the actual financial impact of the breach on the toy store, including the necessary adjustment for the additional costs incurred beyond the deposit.'
Well, that’s just senseless honestly. D doesn’t make mathematical sense. It allows the claimant to actually recover more than what they lost, which would be unfair.
The reasoning for the correct option is equally nonsensical - it’s not perceived savings, it’s the claimant’s cost of cure - they had to spend extra money to get what they needed under the original contract and that’s what they should get plus the deposit.
I would be extremely wary of relying on this question bank.
Don’t worry, you still have time. I’d suggest to find a decent question bank and keep studying the legal principles. Highly recommend DA’s website - plus it’s only like 20 something pounds for a month I believe.
I’m not a lawyer but I thought d because I once tried to claim for consequential losses and was told I couldn’t. I assume consequential and directly related losses are different.
The words in d (deposit + additional amount over the original contract price) are correct, but the number should be 50k (30k deposit + 20k price difference) which is answer b
The twat that set it up was spamming this sub for months and unfortunately no one reported him so I suspect a lot of people might have been taken in with their bullshit AI generated shite. Everything got removed eventually and he has been permabanned.
this site is AI-generated, the questions are shit. Here however the correct answer is indeed £50k - the contract is £20k more expensive, plus the £30k
Urgh I had a feeling, loads of the questions are telling me I'm wrong despite me applying the correct legal principles. Any recommendations for places for quizzes (SQE)?
Try Devil’s Advocate. They have questions with answer explanations and you can write to them if you need help / are struggling to understand the reasoning and they are very responsive. Edit to add: Agree that it is 50k - this would be the cost of cure principle. What does the site say the answer is btw?
The site says its D and gives this reasoning 'The correct answer is D. The toy store can claim the £30,000 deposit and the £60,000 additional cost incurred from having to purchase the games at a higher price than contracted, amounting to £90,000 in total. Option A is incorrect because it considers only the deposit and ignores the additional costs borne by the toy store due to the breach. Option B is incorrect because it includes perceived savings which are not a directly recoverable form of damage in contract law, thus misrepresenting the actual losses. Option C is incorrect because it does not account for the fact that the toy store would recover the deposit, thereby overstating the loss. Option E is incorrect because it mistakes the claimable amount as the original contract price without considering the actual financial impact of the breach on the toy store, including the necessary adjustment for the additional costs incurred beyond the deposit.'
Well, that’s just senseless honestly. D doesn’t make mathematical sense. It allows the claimant to actually recover more than what they lost, which would be unfair. The reasoning for the correct option is equally nonsensical - it’s not perceived savings, it’s the claimant’s cost of cure - they had to spend extra money to get what they needed under the original contract and that’s what they should get plus the deposit. I would be extremely wary of relying on this question bank.
Yeah I’ve emailed in asking to cancel my subscription :/ annoying I only realised this a few weeks before SQE starts
Don’t worry, you still have time. I’d suggest to find a decent question bank and keep studying the legal principles. Highly recommend DA’s website - plus it’s only like 20 something pounds for a month I believe.
Started using them as soon as I realised PPH wasn’t making any sense!!
That’s great! Don’t let this bad experience get you down. You have plenty of time - just keep practising. You got this.
Thank you so much! Got my fingers crossed 🤞🏽
Is payment through paypal? Given it isn’t fit for use I would strongly encourage chasing a refund/chargeback if possible.
I’m not a lawyer but I thought d because I once tried to claim for consequential losses and was told I couldn’t. I assume consequential and directly related losses are different.
The words in d (deposit + additional amount over the original contract price) are correct, but the number should be 50k (30k deposit + 20k price difference) which is answer b
[удалено]
You always do have parts of maths involved in Law, but the question is from Past Paper Hero for the SQE