STUDYCLOCK EXAM REVIEW
CIVIL ADVOCACY
UNIT 5 –MURNAGHANI SAMPLE
IN THE MATTER OF SEAMUS MURNAGHAN
AND MUSICMAKER LIMITED
_______________________________________
OPINION
_______________________________________
1. I am asked to advise Mr Murnaghan in connection with a claim against him by
Musicmaker Ltd (‘Musicmaker’) for damages for breach of contract. In
particular, I am asked to consider whether he has a valid defence, whether he
can allege contributory negligence and whether he has a possible
counterclaim.
Factual Background
2. Mr Murnaghan is a formerly successful singer and entertainer living in New
York. His career, though continuing, has been less active in recent years. On
12th May 2019 in New York, he met Hal Jones, managing director of
Musicmaker, a concert promotions company. They reached an oral agreement
that Mr Murnaghan would perform two concerts for Musicmaker on 17th and
18th August 2019 at the Beeston Bowl, Nottingham, for a fee of £20,000. A
dispute has arisen between the parties as to whether there was any agreed
repertoire for these concerts, and if so what that repertoire was.
3. Mr Murnaghan flew to England on 17th August 2019 and appeared at the first
concert on that date. Musicmaker alleges that he was drunk, unable to sing in
tune and forgot the words of some of the songs. They also allege that, in
9ad72eeb3aa1e5ec4c00e2dbe8b014223389143c.docx 1
©The University of Law
, breach of contract, he sang 1980s pop songs instead of songs from Broadway.
Mr Murnaghan suggests that he may have been jetlagged at this concert, that
the stage area was dangerous resulting in him tripping, and that faulty
equipment all led to a below-par performance.
4. Following the concert, a confrontation occurred between the parties. Mr
Murnaghan alleges that Hal Jones was the aggressor during this
confrontation, and conversely Musicmaker allege that Mr Murnaghan was
drunk and the aggressive party.
5. Mr Murnaghan neither attended nor performed at the second concert on 18th
August.
6. Musicmaker have now instructed solicitors whose letter of claim sets out the
matters referred to above and seeks to recover damages of £15,000 resulting
from refunds for concert-goers at the first concert and £30,000 representing
loss of profits from the second concert.
Musicmaker’s Claim
7. The allegations of Musicmaker are met not merely with a defence but also with
a potential counterclaim by Mr Murnaghan. I shall address the issues in the
following order:
i) Did Mr Murnaghan breach a term as to song choice?
ii) Whose fault were the failings of the first concert?
iii) Liability arising from the non-performance of the second concert;
iv) The availability of contributory negligence as a defence;
v) Quantum and the possibility of claiming damages for loss of reputation.
Did Mr Murnaghan breach a term as to song choice?
8. Mr Murnaghan asserts that there was no agreement as to the content of the
repertoire of the two concerts. Whilst initially it may have been the case that
the agreement was silent as to song choice, it seems unlikely that there was
9ad72eeb3aa1e5ec4c00e2dbe8b014223389143c.docx 2
©The University of Law
CIVIL ADVOCACY
UNIT 5 –MURNAGHANI SAMPLE
IN THE MATTER OF SEAMUS MURNAGHAN
AND MUSICMAKER LIMITED
_______________________________________
OPINION
_______________________________________
1. I am asked to advise Mr Murnaghan in connection with a claim against him by
Musicmaker Ltd (‘Musicmaker’) for damages for breach of contract. In
particular, I am asked to consider whether he has a valid defence, whether he
can allege contributory negligence and whether he has a possible
counterclaim.
Factual Background
2. Mr Murnaghan is a formerly successful singer and entertainer living in New
York. His career, though continuing, has been less active in recent years. On
12th May 2019 in New York, he met Hal Jones, managing director of
Musicmaker, a concert promotions company. They reached an oral agreement
that Mr Murnaghan would perform two concerts for Musicmaker on 17th and
18th August 2019 at the Beeston Bowl, Nottingham, for a fee of £20,000. A
dispute has arisen between the parties as to whether there was any agreed
repertoire for these concerts, and if so what that repertoire was.
3. Mr Murnaghan flew to England on 17th August 2019 and appeared at the first
concert on that date. Musicmaker alleges that he was drunk, unable to sing in
tune and forgot the words of some of the songs. They also allege that, in
9ad72eeb3aa1e5ec4c00e2dbe8b014223389143c.docx 1
©The University of Law
, breach of contract, he sang 1980s pop songs instead of songs from Broadway.
Mr Murnaghan suggests that he may have been jetlagged at this concert, that
the stage area was dangerous resulting in him tripping, and that faulty
equipment all led to a below-par performance.
4. Following the concert, a confrontation occurred between the parties. Mr
Murnaghan alleges that Hal Jones was the aggressor during this
confrontation, and conversely Musicmaker allege that Mr Murnaghan was
drunk and the aggressive party.
5. Mr Murnaghan neither attended nor performed at the second concert on 18th
August.
6. Musicmaker have now instructed solicitors whose letter of claim sets out the
matters referred to above and seeks to recover damages of £15,000 resulting
from refunds for concert-goers at the first concert and £30,000 representing
loss of profits from the second concert.
Musicmaker’s Claim
7. The allegations of Musicmaker are met not merely with a defence but also with
a potential counterclaim by Mr Murnaghan. I shall address the issues in the
following order:
i) Did Mr Murnaghan breach a term as to song choice?
ii) Whose fault were the failings of the first concert?
iii) Liability arising from the non-performance of the second concert;
iv) The availability of contributory negligence as a defence;
v) Quantum and the possibility of claiming damages for loss of reputation.
Did Mr Murnaghan breach a term as to song choice?
8. Mr Murnaghan asserts that there was no agreement as to the content of the
repertoire of the two concerts. Whilst initially it may have been the case that
the agreement was silent as to song choice, it seems unlikely that there was
9ad72eeb3aa1e5ec4c00e2dbe8b014223389143c.docx 2
©The University of Law
