Opinion Writing - WS1
Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
1. Contract
Law:
A valid contract consists of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to
create legal relations. The contract in this case appears to be in writing and
signed, so these elements are likely satisfied.
• Statutory implied terms may apply depending on contract type. Since
this is a contract for services, the Supply of Goods and Services
Act 1982 (SGSA 1982) is relevant. Under s.13 SGSA, services must be
carried out with reasonable care and skill.
• Terms may also be implied at common law for business efficacy: M&S v
BNP Paribas [2015].
Facts:
• Contract dated 2 March 2023.
• Clauses:
◦ 2b: Equipment must be of a standard suitable for professional
presentations.
◦ 2d: Support services to ensure smooth running, including technician
presence.
◦ 2e: Mediorg to ensure backup equipment.
◦ 3 & 4: Attempt by defendant to qualify the absolute nature of clauses 2d
and 2e.
Claimant (OPW): Argues express written terms were breached and that
services were not performed with reasonable care and skill.
Defendant (Mediorg): Argues Clause 2d and 2e must be read with Clauses 3
and 4, which introduce discretion and limit scope.
Evidence:
• The signed contract.
• Email chain confirming technician and backup arrangements.
2. Breach
Law:
A breach occurs where a party fails to perform obligations under a term of the
contract.
Facts:
• Projector failed during presentation.
, • No on-site technician was available.
• Backup equipment was not usable due to compatibility or absence.
Claimant Fact: Services failed; no technician or adequate backup present.
Defendant Fact: Attempted to comply; Clause 4 allows judgment on
appropriateness of support.
Evidence:
• Witness statement from OPW presenter.
• Photographs showing the technical failure.
• Mediorg’s post-event apology email acknowledging issues.
3. Causation
Law:
C must prove that D’s breach caused their loss. Test: But for the breach, would
the loss have occurred?
Facts:
• OPW lost potential client contracts due to failure of the presentation.
• Reputation damage claimed.
Claimant Fact: Presentation failure directly caused lost business.
Defendant Fact: May argue loss due to other factors (e.g. OPW’s own
preparation).
Evidence:
• Lost business email responses.
• Event attendee feedback.
4. Loss
Law:
C can recover losses that are not too remote (Hadley v Baxendale), and must
mitigate losses.
Facts:
• Claimed loss of £50,000 in potential contracts.
• Reputational harm.
Claimant Fact: Loss flowed directly from breach.
Defendant Fact: Loss too remote; OPW didn’t mitigate (e.g. could have
brought a spare projector).
Evidence:
, • Financial projection documents.
• Emails from potential clients pulling out.
Defences
Clause 7 – Limitation Clause
Law:
Limitation or exclusion clauses must:
1. Be properly incorporated,
2. Cover the breach,
3. Be reasonable under s.11 UCTA 1977.
Facts:
• Clause 7: "In no event shall Mediorg be liable for consequential loss
including loss of business or profit."
Claimant Argument:
Clause is unreasonable and doesn’t exclude liability for breach of fundamental
term.
Defendant Argument:
Clause valid and limits liability for OPW's claimed losses.
Evidence:
• The contract (including Clause 7).
• No specific negotiation on Clause 7—may impact reasonableness under
UCTA.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths (C) Weaknesses (C)
Clear breach of express and implied
Clause 7 may limit liability
terms
Direct causation between breach and Loss may be considered too
loss remote
Strong factual evidence (photos, Discretion clauses (3 & 4) may
witness, emails) weaken case
Strengths (D) Weaknesses (D)
Clause 7 may limit or exclude
Clause may fail UCTA test for reasonableness
liability
Clauses 3 & 4 create Failure to provide any technician/backup
, discretion/flexibility weakens defence
No oral terms—limiting claimant
Implied statutory duty of care still applies
flexibility
Cau
Claimant
se Ele
fact / Eviden
of men Law Fact
Defendant ce
Acti t
fact
on
Contract
A valid contract must have dated 2 Claimant:
offer, acceptance, March 2023. Binding
consideration, and intention. Clauses 2b, written terms
Bre Express written terms apply. 2d, 2e breached.
The
ach For services, the Supply of impose Contract for
signed
of Cont Goods and Services Act express services.
written
Con ract 1982 (s.13) implies a term obligations. Defendant:
contract
trac that services be carried out Clauses 3 Clauses 2d/2e
.
t with reasonable care and skill. and 4 provide must be read
Common law: Terms may be Mediorg with 3/4,
implied for business efficacy discretion on giving
(M&S v BNP Paribas [2015]) staffing and discretion.
equipment.
Claimant: OPW
Breach of witness
clauses 2d stateme
No technician and 2e—no nt;
present, no technician, no Photos
working functional of
A breach occurs where a party
Brea backup backup. technic
fails to perform obligations
ch equipment, Defendant: al
under a contractual term.
equipment Attempted failure;
failure during compliance; Mediorg
presentation. discretion email
allowed under acknowl
clauses 3 and edging
4. issue.
Cau The breach must have caused Loss of Claimant: Attende
sati the loss. "But for" test applies. business But for e
on No intervening act should from failed breach, feedbac
break the chain. presentation. business k;
Client would not be Emails
disengaged lost. from
due to Defendant: lost
technical Loss may be clients.
failure. due to OPW’s
own
preparation or
client’s
independent
Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
1. Contract
Law:
A valid contract consists of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to
create legal relations. The contract in this case appears to be in writing and
signed, so these elements are likely satisfied.
• Statutory implied terms may apply depending on contract type. Since
this is a contract for services, the Supply of Goods and Services
Act 1982 (SGSA 1982) is relevant. Under s.13 SGSA, services must be
carried out with reasonable care and skill.
• Terms may also be implied at common law for business efficacy: M&S v
BNP Paribas [2015].
Facts:
• Contract dated 2 March 2023.
• Clauses:
◦ 2b: Equipment must be of a standard suitable for professional
presentations.
◦ 2d: Support services to ensure smooth running, including technician
presence.
◦ 2e: Mediorg to ensure backup equipment.
◦ 3 & 4: Attempt by defendant to qualify the absolute nature of clauses 2d
and 2e.
Claimant (OPW): Argues express written terms were breached and that
services were not performed with reasonable care and skill.
Defendant (Mediorg): Argues Clause 2d and 2e must be read with Clauses 3
and 4, which introduce discretion and limit scope.
Evidence:
• The signed contract.
• Email chain confirming technician and backup arrangements.
2. Breach
Law:
A breach occurs where a party fails to perform obligations under a term of the
contract.
Facts:
• Projector failed during presentation.
, • No on-site technician was available.
• Backup equipment was not usable due to compatibility or absence.
Claimant Fact: Services failed; no technician or adequate backup present.
Defendant Fact: Attempted to comply; Clause 4 allows judgment on
appropriateness of support.
Evidence:
• Witness statement from OPW presenter.
• Photographs showing the technical failure.
• Mediorg’s post-event apology email acknowledging issues.
3. Causation
Law:
C must prove that D’s breach caused their loss. Test: But for the breach, would
the loss have occurred?
Facts:
• OPW lost potential client contracts due to failure of the presentation.
• Reputation damage claimed.
Claimant Fact: Presentation failure directly caused lost business.
Defendant Fact: May argue loss due to other factors (e.g. OPW’s own
preparation).
Evidence:
• Lost business email responses.
• Event attendee feedback.
4. Loss
Law:
C can recover losses that are not too remote (Hadley v Baxendale), and must
mitigate losses.
Facts:
• Claimed loss of £50,000 in potential contracts.
• Reputational harm.
Claimant Fact: Loss flowed directly from breach.
Defendant Fact: Loss too remote; OPW didn’t mitigate (e.g. could have
brought a spare projector).
Evidence:
, • Financial projection documents.
• Emails from potential clients pulling out.
Defences
Clause 7 – Limitation Clause
Law:
Limitation or exclusion clauses must:
1. Be properly incorporated,
2. Cover the breach,
3. Be reasonable under s.11 UCTA 1977.
Facts:
• Clause 7: "In no event shall Mediorg be liable for consequential loss
including loss of business or profit."
Claimant Argument:
Clause is unreasonable and doesn’t exclude liability for breach of fundamental
term.
Defendant Argument:
Clause valid and limits liability for OPW's claimed losses.
Evidence:
• The contract (including Clause 7).
• No specific negotiation on Clause 7—may impact reasonableness under
UCTA.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths (C) Weaknesses (C)
Clear breach of express and implied
Clause 7 may limit liability
terms
Direct causation between breach and Loss may be considered too
loss remote
Strong factual evidence (photos, Discretion clauses (3 & 4) may
witness, emails) weaken case
Strengths (D) Weaknesses (D)
Clause 7 may limit or exclude
Clause may fail UCTA test for reasonableness
liability
Clauses 3 & 4 create Failure to provide any technician/backup
, discretion/flexibility weakens defence
No oral terms—limiting claimant
Implied statutory duty of care still applies
flexibility
Cau
Claimant
se Ele
fact / Eviden
of men Law Fact
Defendant ce
Acti t
fact
on
Contract
A valid contract must have dated 2 Claimant:
offer, acceptance, March 2023. Binding
consideration, and intention. Clauses 2b, written terms
Bre Express written terms apply. 2d, 2e breached.
The
ach For services, the Supply of impose Contract for
signed
of Cont Goods and Services Act express services.
written
Con ract 1982 (s.13) implies a term obligations. Defendant:
contract
trac that services be carried out Clauses 3 Clauses 2d/2e
.
t with reasonable care and skill. and 4 provide must be read
Common law: Terms may be Mediorg with 3/4,
implied for business efficacy discretion on giving
(M&S v BNP Paribas [2015]) staffing and discretion.
equipment.
Claimant: OPW
Breach of witness
clauses 2d stateme
No technician and 2e—no nt;
present, no technician, no Photos
working functional of
A breach occurs where a party
Brea backup backup. technic
fails to perform obligations
ch equipment, Defendant: al
under a contractual term.
equipment Attempted failure;
failure during compliance; Mediorg
presentation. discretion email
allowed under acknowl
clauses 3 and edging
4. issue.
Cau The breach must have caused Loss of Claimant: Attende
sati the loss. "But for" test applies. business But for e
on No intervening act should from failed breach, feedbac
break the chain. presentation. business k;
Client would not be Emails
disengaged lost. from
due to Defendant: lost
technical Loss may be clients.
failure. due to OPW’s
own
preparation or
client’s
independent
