Contract case reading exercise.
Extracts from this essay...
Contract case reading exercise The claimant in this case is named Rebecca Jane Edmonds born on the 1 November 1968 at the time of the case she was aged 31. She graduated from Oxford with a degree in English and worked within the information technology industry for sometime before deciding to become a lawyer. She undertook a M.A course at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Following this she studied for the common professional examination at the University of Westminster. Edmonds did a number of mini pupillages and successfully found herself at the Inns of Court school of law. During her year there she decided to pursue a career at the criminal bar. After contacting a number of chambers specialising in crime she was invited to an interview at Mr. Lawson's' chambers at 23, Essex street, a large and highly regarded set of criminal chambers. Edmonds was offered by the head of the chambers an unfounded 12-month pupilage at the chambers on 21st Aug 1998. Michael Lawson was sued by claimant Rebecca Edmonds on his own behalf and behalf of all the members of chambers, at 23 Essex Street London the
This case was heard in the Queens Bench Division by a claim dated 28 July 1999 by the claimant Edmonds. The Queens Bench Division is an administrative division, which forms part of The High Court of Justice. It has the greatest workload and deals with some criminal jurisdiction and some appellate jurisdiction. The main civil work of this court is in tort and contract cases. Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ deals with the issue of 'was there a contract?' He states the judge held that there was a contract between the claiment Edmonds and Lawson and others. Chambers on 1 October 1998. This is based on the chambers offer of a 12 month pupillage and Edmonds acceptance of the offer. The first issue of whether there was a contract referred to by Lord Bingham wishes to disclose whether there was any consideration furthermore did the parties intend to enter into legally binding relations. Lord Bingham of Cornhill analyses intentions to create legal relations in this case. He looks at the defendant's point of view of writing an offer of pupilage to the claiment, stating that this offer was made after a long time consuming and expensive process.
The judge also states that the pupil has freedom to practise provisionally not for the benefit of the chambers but for the sole benefit of the pupil themselves. The judge found there was not a contract for purposes of the minimum wage act; the claiment did not fit into the category of this act. Devilled work is carried out by a devil; this is a barrister to whom another barrister passes work because he is too busy. To devil someone is to do unpleasant or boring work for them. The claimant's case was rejected due to a contractual dispute. The argument was that the contract between the claiment (Edmonds) and the defendants (Lawson and others) was one whereby the claiment undertook the duty of work for any assigned pupil master as might be requested by her during her pupilage. The two legislative measures that are considered in this case are The National Minimum wage Act 1998 and the regulations of 1999. These were used to establish whether the claiment fitted into the category of a 'worker'. These can also be referred to as statutory instruments, which is any delegated legislation to which the statutory instrument Act 1946 applies.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers