LAW1108 Contract Law Summative Assessment 2 April 2026 Assessment Instructions • Type your coursework in Times New Roman 12-point font, 1.5-line spacing as a Microsoft Word document (.docx) and paragraphs must be justified. Pdf or any other file type is not acceptable. • The word limit is 3,000 words. (Excluding footnotes and bibliography, so your work total should be between 2900 and 3000 words). Word count must be stated. Coursework which fails to state the word count or states the word count incorrectly will be penalised by the deduction of 2%. Text above 10% of the word count will not be graded. • You must answer both questions and each answer should be approximately 1,500 words. Do not repeat the question in your answer. • A full Bibliography for the question must be included at the end of each question, in which all cases, statutes, and all source material, including websites, must be fully and correctly cited. Statute, cases and quotations must be attributed and included in footnotes, which should contain correct citations only and not text. Your coursework must be referenced following the OSCOLA referencing style. Non-OSCOLA compliant referencing will not attract marks. • Be aware of, and comply with, the University Regulations on Academic Misconduct. • You must retain a copy of your work. Submission of coursework The coursework must be submitted by 16.00 GMT on Wednesday 16th of April 2026 electronically via Turnitin. A Turnitin drop-box (‘Assessment 2’) is set up under the Assessment section on the LAW1108 Contract Law module site. Marks will be awarded for accurate identification of legal issues, application of relevant case law, coherent structure, and clear legal reasoning.   Contract Summative Assessment 2 Questions Question 1 In December 2025, a well-known laptop manufacturer, Apricot Ltd., manufactured exactly ten limited edition laptops called ‘MockBook’, and asked members of the Royal Family to sign on each one of them. The company advertised that all income from selling these laptops would be directed to charity. On the 1st of January 2026, Apricot placed advertisements on ‘Google AdWords’, stating: ‘Special laptop sale for charity at Middlesex University, Hendon Campus, 15 January 2026, starts at 1pm. All of our models for 50% off, including our limited edition ‘MockBook’, sold for £5,000 instead of £10,000. All revenue goes to charity. Come early not to miss out!’. Middlesex University had been authorised by Apricot Ltd. to conduct the charitable sale. On the same day, Apricot also advertised their limited edition MockBook model on Facebook: ‘The first two who reply can buy a MockBook laptop for 50% off! £500 instead of £10,000’. Rose, a former customer of Apricot Ltd., replies, ‘I am happy to buy two of your MockBooks for £500 each.” One minute later, Josey, a tech shop owner, replied ‘I want 11 pieces please’. One minute later, Dane replied ‘10 laptops for me’. One minute later, a customer service representative of Apricot noticed that the advertisement should have stated ‘£5,000’ and not ‘£500’ to correctly reflect the 50% discount and immediately fixed it to show the correct price (£5,000). Not noticing this amendment, Rose immediately transferred £1,000 to the bank account of Apricot and sent the company the following message: ‘Thank you for your offer, I am so lucky to be the first respondent, I’m looking forward to receiving my two units, what a great deal and for such a great charitable cause!’. Josey, who noticed the correction from £500 to £5,000, immediately sent Apricot a message saying, ‘I’m happy to be the second respondent, please give me your bank account details so I can transfer you £55,000 for 11 pieces, I already have 11 customers who pre-ordered them so please be quick!’. Then, Dane wrote to Apricot: ‘I see that I am the third respondent, that’s a shame, but if the first or second ones don’t come through, I will pay full price, £100,000 for 10 laptops. If I hear nothing from you by tomorrow, I will assume that you accepted my generous offer’. Apricot did not respond to this message. Apricot ignored Rose because of her low offer, and ignored Josey because Josey asked for 11 laptops (while only 10 have been produced). An Apricot representative then decides that they are taking Dane’s offer but did not believe that they need to contact him as the deal reflects the retail price. Instead, an Apricot representative called Middlesex University, on the evening of the 14th of January 2026, and left a message on the University’s central answering machine instructing them to cancel the charitable sale of these 10 limited edition laptops because they intend to sell the laptops to Dane. However, no one at the University checks for voice messages, until the 16th of January, after the event. On the 15th of January, at 1:05pm, a Middlesex University Student Ambassador sold all 10 MockBook units for £5,000 each. Some new owners posted about their purchases on social media, and Apricot announced on their website that all units have been sold. Rose, Josey and Dane are very angry to hear this news. Using Common Law, advise Rose, Josey, and Dane on any actions and agreements they may have, considering issues of offer and acceptance, mistake, authority, intention to create legal relations, and any relevant remedies. Where appropriate, consider the availability of contractual remedies (such as damages or rescission) or equitable remedies (such as specific performance or injunction), including consideration of the £500 vs £5,000 mistake in the Facebook advertisement. Question 2 On the 1st of July 2025, Nancy decided to go into the escape room business with a partner, Daniel, and decides to look for an appropriate space in London. Looking through real estate websites, Nancy and Daniel find an old warehouse for rent in Hendon. The description of the property claims that the size of the warehouse is ‘500+ sq. ft’. It also states that ‘it has the best location in Hendon’. The rent is £5,000 per month. On the 15th of July, Nancy and Daniel decide to meet and talk with the owner at the property during the evening. The owner tells them that ‘this warehouse is over 500 sq. ft, and this is busy street that is easy for everyone to find’. The owner tells Nancy and Daniel that they can ‘measure the warehouse themselves’ and that they can ‘come again during daytime to see how busy the street is’. Nancy believes that she is a good judge of character and decides to trust the owner without further examinations. Daniel is more skeptical but goes along with Nancy’s decision. Nancy and Daniel discuss the business venture at a gaming convention with their acquaintance Felix, who encourage them to go and rent the warehouse, because he ‘knows it would be brilliant, escape rooms are so popular right now!’. Felix encouraged Nancy and Daniel to rent the warehouse but made no factual statements about the property itself and did not disclose his employment with a rival company. Encouraged by Felix, Nancy and Daniel decide to rent the warehouse and sign a 3-year rental contract (£5,000 per month). However, after hiring ‘Builder Brothers Ltd’ to help them build the escape room itself, they found out from Builder Brothers that the warehouse is much smaller than advertised, and that they can only build an escape room of up to 250 sq. ft. for groups of 2-6 players. As a result, Nancy and Daniel realise that they would not be able to accommodate larger groups of 6-10 players as originally planned, reducing their expected profits by approximately £10,000 per month. Builder Brothers agreed to finish constructing the escape room by 31st of August 2025. On the 1st of August 2025, Nancy and Daniel announce on their social media accounts that the escape room will open on the 1st of September. Nancy and Daniel sell tickets and get fully booked for the month of September. However, on the 19th of August, Builder Brothers inform them that they will not complete the room on time, as they need additional three weeks to complete the project. Nancy and Daniel, who do not want to disappoint their clients, tell ‘Builder Brothers’ that they will pay them a bonus of double their wages if they hurry up and help them complete the room as they initially agreed upon (completion by the 31st of August 2025). Builder Brothers agreed and completed the room on the 31st of August 2025. Nancy and Daniel open the room for the public. Some clients find it hard to locate the room because it is at the end of a one-way street. They also cannot accommodate larger groups as planned, causing them to lose potential bookings and revenue. Nancy and Daniel operate the escape room throughout September-December 2025, accommodating groups of 2-6 players seven days a week, with mixed reviews from customers. Builder Brothers completed the work, but Nancy and Daniel only paid the originally agreed amount despite the promise of double wages bonus. Advise Nancy and Daniel as to what legal remedies, if any, they may have against the landlord and Builder Brothers. Advise Builder Brothers as to what legal remedies, if any, they may have against Nancy and Daniel.