Chapter 21 Scenario Questions

Evan is intending to sue his builder, Des, for damage that Des caused to Evan's property. Evan suspects that Des may try to dissipate his assets so that he will be unable to meet the claim. Evan applies to the court and succeeds in getting a freezing order over Des's bank account.
What are Evan and Des able to do with the money in the bank account?

Evan has a security interest over the money in the bank account. This means Evan takes priority over Des's other creditors.

Des holds the money in the bank account on trust for Evan.

Des is unable to access the money in the bank account, but Evan has no rights over the money.

Des is able to access the money in the bank account, but he is not able to transfer the money overseas.

Colin built a house next to Alice's land. The only way for Colin to access his house involves breaching a covenant over Alice's land. Alice sought an injunction to restrain Colin from continuing breach of the covenant. The injunction was refused, and the court ordered Colin to pay damages.
Colin continues to breach the covenant. What further action can Alice take?

It is clear that the court was wrong to refuse an injunction and one should be ordered.

Colin is liable for all continuing and future breaches and so will owe further damages in the future.

An injunction was not available as it would be disproportionately oppressive to Colin. As an injunction was not available, it is not appropriate for damages to be paid in lieu.

Alice is not entitled to anything further. Colin is permitted to breach the covenant in the future.

Jonny and Tom are best friends. Jonny induces Tom to agree that he should grant a mortgage over his house in favour of a bank. Jonny provides false information about the benefits of a mortgage. The bank is highly suspicious and suspects that Jonny has misled Tom into agreeing to the mortgage. Tom changes his mind.
Can Tom do anything to get out of the arrangement?

Tom cannot rescind the agreement because it was Jonny who made the misrepresentation, not the bank.

Tom cannot rescind the agreement because none of the grounds of rescission have been met.

Tom is able to rescind the agreement because he has changed his mind and that is enough.

Tom is able to rescind the agreement because the bank had constructive notice of the misrepresentation.

Debra is suffering with dementia. Lucy offers to buy Debra's house, unaware of Debra's illness. Debra's house is worth £250,000 and Lucy offers £100,000. Debra agrees.
Can Debra rescind the agreement?

Debra suffered from a special disability or disadvantage and so can rescind the agreement.

Lucy did not know about Debra's illness and so did not deliberately exploit Debra's disadvantage, so Debra cannot rescind the agreement.

Debra can rescind the agreement as it was oppressive and clearly unfair, unjust, and unreasonable.

Debra cannot rescind the agreement as Debra was herself responsible and is not coming to Equity with clean hands.

Harriet and Marta are negotiating a contract for a business which relates to walking and grooming dogs. During the negotiations, they agree that Harriet will be responsible for walking the dogs and will be liable for a failure to do so. The terms of the contract, however, state that Marta will be responsible and risks liability.
What can Harriet and Marta do?

Harriet can rescind the contract on the ground of undue influence.

Harriet can rescind the contract on the ground of misrepresentation.

Harriet can seek rectification of the contract to reflect their common intention.

Harriet can do nothing. The requirements for identifying a common intention have not been met.

Quiz Content