LLM International Business Law LAWS 7100 Advanced Legal Skills End of module assessment: Case analysis (

1.  This assessment is weighted 100% towards your final module mark. Please submit your work on or before 16th January 2015
2. b)  Please read the facts and decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 in full.
3. c)  You are then required to answer all the questions numbered 1-9. The word limit is 4000 words. Please note that there is a maximum 10% leverage to exceed the word count. However, any words over this threshold will result in a penalty or in the exceeding wordage not being marked by the moderators.
4. d)  The aim of this assignment is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your understanding and legal skills in undertaking legal research, undertaking analysis of legal texts, reasoning skills, presenting research, and very importantly the ability to reference approptaitly using the OSCOLA method.
5. e)  You are required to demonstrate the following learning and skills:
   •   Demonstrate a critical and comprehensive understanding of the techniques

     and methods applicable to postgraduate legal research and legal

     methodology

   •   Critically evaluate and demonstrate the ability to conceive, design, implement

     and adapt a substantial piece of research with scholarly integrity

   •   Demonstrate critical, reflective and advanced intellectual engagement with

     difficult issues in law

   •   Analytically integrate knowledge, handle complexity and formulate

     judgements with incomplete or limited information

   •   Critically appraise and communicate your conclusions and the knowledge

     and rationale underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously

6. f)  You will be assessed based on the following criteria:

   The table below provides guidance on the criteria that will be applied by tutors when marking assessments. There are 5 broad categories –Knowledge & Understanding, Structure, Argument & Analysis, Research and Presentation. Within those categories, the left hand column provides examples of the strengths that will gain a good mark and the right hand column provides examples of the weaknesses that will not! Please note that these are indicative and are not intended as a comprehensive list of every feature that could be in a coursework submission. Please note also that the mark you are awarded reflects the tutor’s overall impression of the coursework submission, based on these criteria. In other words, while you may receive a high mark there will almost certainly still be areas of weakness. Equally, you may receive a low mark but there could still be strengths in your work. You should take note of the feedback, build on your strengths and learn from and minimize your weaknesses.

2

Please note that late submissions will incur a penalty. If you require an extension to your work, please email the Programme Leader, Ann Thanaraj (ann.thanaraj@cumbria.ac.uk) explaining your reasons and please also supply us with relevant evidence that you see fit to substantiate your request.

3

Answer the following questions:

1. What are the material facts of the case?
2. What are the legal issues involved?
3. What was the decision of the court?
4. What were the main differences in reasoning between the majority judgment(s) and the dissenting judgment(s)?
5. What is the ‘neighbour principle’? Define the term ‘neighbour’. How does this principle apply to the tort of negligence?
6. Which of the following can be deduced from the judgment? Please explain your answers

   a. The claimant (pursuer) could have sued the retailer for breach of contract.

   b. The claimant’s friend, who purchased the drink, could have sued the manufacturer in negligence.

   c. If the bottle had been clear, the manufacturer might not have been liable.

   d. If someone found the bottle and drank it, they probably could have sued the manufacturer.

7. Read this article regarding the Oil Industry in Nigeria:

   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria- niger-delta-shell

a. Explain how the principles of law from Donoghue v Stevenson might be relevant to this environmental problem.

8. Does Aitkin’s judgement relate only to manufacturers of food or similar or does it go further? Explain your reasoning.
9. Critically assess the extent to which Aitin’s judgement accurately reflects the opinion of the majority judges.

4

*562 M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) Appellant; v. Stevenson Respondent. House of Lords
HL
Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin , Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan. 1932 May 26.

Negligence–Liability of Manufacturer to ultimate Consumer–Article of Food– Defect likely to cause Injury to Health.