Log In
Log In
Led by Edward Coke Simulacrum
Eight tutorials on the legal framework within which UK business operates — contract, tort, company law, partnership, agency, and competition. Edward Coke Simulacrum leads, drawing on his Institutes and Reports as the foundation of the common law tradition. He is joined by Frederick Pollock Simulacrum (contract), Frederic Maitland Simulacrum (company law and corporate personality), Lord Macnaghten Simulacrum (contract performance and remedies), Lord Atkin Simulacrum (tort and the neighbour principle), and Louis Brandeis Simulacrum (competition and economic regulation). Stage 3 of the Accounting & Finance (UK) programme.
Courses are available to holders of a paid pass or membership. See passes & membership →
Led by Edward Coke Simulacrum
The question
An orientation to the English common-law system as the foundation on which UK business law sits. Coke Simulacrum covers the distinction between common law (judge-made law developed through decided cases), equity (the parallel system of remedies developed by the Court of Chancery, fused into the common law courts in 1873–75), and statute; the doctrine of binding precedent (*stare decisis*) and the court hierarchy that runs from the County Court and Magistrates up through the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court; the difference between civil and criminal proceedings and the standards of proof in each; and the constitutional principle that the courts can interpret statute but Parliament is sovereign — subject to the qualifications introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 and (until departure) EU law. The closing scenario walks the student through tracing a legal question from a commercial dispute up the court hierarchy.
Outcome
The student can describe the common-law method and the doctrine of *stare decisis*; can place a court within the UK hierarchy and identify the binding force of its decisions on other courts; can distinguish civil from criminal proceedings and articulate the standards of proof in each; and can articulate the relationship between common law, equity, and statute. (Common-law foundations)
Practice scenarios
Coke Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client is a UK SME that supplied goods worth £180,000 to a customer who has refused to pay, alleging defective product. The contract is governed by English law. The customer has issued proceedings against your client in the County Court for breach of contract; your client has counterclaimed for the unpaid invoices. The case turns on the interpretation of an exclusion clause in the standard terms and conditions, which your client says protects them and the customer says fails the *reasonableness* test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (now superseded for B2C by Consumer Rights Act 2015 but UCTA still applies B2B). The general counsel asks you to map the legal architecture of the case.
Your goals
Led by Frederick Pollock Simulacrum, with Edward Coke Simulacrum on common-law foundations
The question
The architecture of contract formation in English law — offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, certainty of terms, and capacity. Pollock Simulacrum walks through each requirement with the leading case law from Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball through to modern unilateral-contract and electronic-acceptance jurisprudence; the rules on counter-offer and acceptance by silence; the postal rule and its limits; the doctrine of consideration with its sufficient-need-not-be-adequate principle and the rules on past consideration and existing duty; intention to create legal relations and how it is presumed in commercial contexts; certainty of terms and the courts' approach to gap-filling. The closing scenario tests contract formation against an SME's standard purchase order and supplier acknowledgement that disagree on terms — the *battle of the forms*.
Outcome
The student can identify the requirements of a valid contract under English law; can apply the rules of offer and acceptance to a sequence of communications and identify the moment of contract formation; can apply the consideration rules to a variation of contract; and can analyse a *battle of the forms* exchange to determine whose standard terms govern. (Contract formation)
Practice scenarios
Pollock Simulacrum gives you the case. Your SME client (a manufacturer of specialist components) issued a standard-form purchase order to a supplier on 14 March specifying delivery date, price, and the buyer's standard terms (which limit the supplier's liability to the contract price). The supplier responded on 18 March with an order acknowledgement on the supplier's standard terms (which exclude all consequential loss and limit liability to direct loss only). The buyer received the acknowledgement, did not respond, and accepted delivery of the goods on 5 April. The goods were defective; the buyer suffered consequential loss of £450,000. Each party now relies on its own standard terms.
Your goals
Led by Lord Macnaghten Simulacrum, with Lord Atkin Simulacrum on remedies and equity
The question
What happens once a valid contract exists — the rules on contractual terms and their classification as conditions, warranties, or innominate terms; performance and the doctrine of frustration; breach and its varieties (anticipatory, actual, repudiatory); the remedies for breach (damages on the *Hadley v Baxendale* foreseeability test; specific performance and injunction in equity; restitution where damages are inadequate); the rules on misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967; the regulation of unfair terms under UCTA 1977 (B2B) and Consumer Rights Act 2015 (B2C); and the techniques of contractual risk allocation including limitation clauses, indemnities, and force majeure. Macnaghten Simulacrum and Atkin Simulacrum work the doctrine; the closing scenario applies it to a contractual dispute over a defective IT system.
Outcome
The student can classify a contractual term as condition, warranty, or innominate term, and apply the consequences for termination; can calculate damages applying the *Hadley v Baxendale* test and mitigation; can apply the UCTA reasonableness test or the CRA 2015 fairness test as appropriate; and can identify the cause of action for misrepresentation and the available remedies. (Contract performance, breach, and remedies)
Practice scenarios
Macnaghten Simulacrum and Atkin Simulacrum together give you the case. Your client is a UK retail group that contracted with an IT supplier in 2022 for a £4.2m bespoke point-of-sale system to be installed across 180 stores by April 2024. Implementation has run 14 months late; the system is now partially operational but failing at peak load; the supplier disputes liability citing a clause in the standard contract that excludes all liability for consequential loss and limits direct liability to the contract price. The retailer has lost an estimated £8.5m in revenue (system failures during Black Friday 2024) and £1.2m in remediation costs.
Your goals
Led by Lord Atkin Simulacrum
The question
Tort law as the parallel system of civil wrongs that does not depend on contract — the law that protects the claimant's interests against harms inflicted by the defendant whether or not the parties had any prior agreement. Atkin Simulacrum walks through the three elements of negligence (duty of care, breach, causation and damage); the *Donoghue v Stevenson* neighbour principle and its modern restatement in *Caparo Industries v Dickman*; the special categories of duty (professional negligence, public authorities, pure economic loss, psychiatric injury); the standard of care and the *Bolam* test for professionals; the principles of factual and legal causation; remoteness under *The Wagon Mound*; defences (consent, contributory negligence, illegality); and the modern statutory and judicial reforms (Compensation Act 2006, Defamation Act 2013, Social Action Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015). The closing scenario applies the framework to a professional negligence claim against an accountancy firm.
Outcome
The student can apply the three-element negligence test (duty, breach, causation/damage); can apply the *Caparo* duty test in a novel context; can apply the *Bolam-Bolitho* professional-standard test; and can identify the principal defences and limitations on tort recovery. (Tort, negligence, and duty of care)
Practice scenarios
Atkin Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client is a private-equity buyer that purchased a UK-listed manufacturing business in 2023 for £180m relying on its audited 2022 financial statements (audited by a Big Four firm). Six months after completion, a fraud was uncovered in the target's largest subsidiary that had been ongoing for three years and had inflated revenue by £45m and EBITDA by £18m over that period. The auditor's working papers (obtained on disclosure in subsequent litigation) show that the engagement team noted unusual revenue patterns in the subsidiary but accepted management's explanation without further substantive testing. The buyer claims professional negligence against the auditor.
Your goals
Led by Frederic Maitland Simulacrum
The question
The legal architecture of the UK limited company — separate legal personality, the corporate veil and its limits, types of company (private limited, public limited, community interest, limited liability partnership), the constitutional documents (memorandum, articles of association, model articles under Companies Act 2006), shares and share capital, capital maintenance, and the principal duties owed by the company itself in its dealings with members and third parties. Maitland Simulacrum walks through the doctrinal foundations, drawing on his own work as the great historian of corporate personality, and reads these against the modern Companies Act 2006 framework. The closing scenario tests corporate-veil doctrine in a parent-subsidiary structure where a creditor seeks to reach the parent.
Outcome
The student can articulate the principle of separate legal personality and the limits of the corporate veil; can identify the appropriate company type for a stated purpose; can describe the constitutional documents and their roles; and can apply the capital-maintenance rules to a proposed transaction. (Company law and corporate personality)
Practice scenarios
Maitland Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client is an unsecured trade creditor of a UK subsidiary in the construction industry. The subsidiary has gone into liquidation owing £4.8m on a major project. The subsidiary was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a UK parent group that had publicly described the subsidiary as a *core part* of its operations and had provided letters of comfort (not guarantees) to several lenders (but not to your client). The parent has continued to trade profitably. The trade creditor wants to pursue the parent.
Your goals
Led by Frederic Maitland Simulacrum, with Lord Macnaghten Simulacrum on fiduciary duty
The question
The duties owed by company directors to the company under the Companies Act 2006 sections 171–177, the procedures for shareholder participation and decision-making (general meetings, written resolutions, the rights of minorities), the principal shareholder protections against unfair prejudice (s994), the derivative claim mechanism (s260–264) for shareholders to bring claims on the company's behalf, and the disqualification regime for directors who have failed in their duties (Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986). Maitland Simulacrum continues with Macnaghten Simulacrum on the equitable foundations of fiduciary duty. The closing scenario applies the framework to a minority-shareholder dispute in a closely-held private company.
Outcome
The student can articulate the seven CA 2006 directors' duties and the consequences of breach; can identify the appropriate shareholder remedy for a stated grievance (derivative claim, unfair prejudice, just-and-equitable winding up); and can advise a board on the proper-purposes doctrine and the s172 enlightened-shareholder-value framework. (Directors' duties and shareholder rights)
Practice scenarios
Maitland Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client owns 25% of a profitable UK private limited company (Hardisty Engineering Ltd) that has been run as a family business for 30 years. The other 75% is held by three siblings. The client has been a working director until 2024 when the siblings used their majority to remove her from the board and stop her director's remuneration; she remains a 25% shareholder but has been excluded from management. The articles are model articles with standard pre-emption rights. The company has £8m of retained earnings; no dividend has been declared in five years. The siblings have indicated they may dilute her stake by issuing new shares for cash to a long-time external advisor.
Your goals
Led by Frederick Pollock Simulacrum
The question
The legal forms for unincorporated business — the general partnership under the Partnership Act 1890, the limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, the limited liability partnership under LLPA 2000 (covered structurally in Module 5), and the sole trader. Pollock Simulacrum returns to walk through partnership formation, the partners' rights and duties inter se, the partnership's relationship with third parties through the doctrine of agency, the partner's personal liability for partnership debts, the dissolution rules, and the comparison with the LLP and limited-company alternatives. The closing scenario covers the conversion of a long-running general partnership to an LLP.
Outcome
The student can identify whether a relationship constitutes a partnership under PA 1890 s1; can apply the default rules of the Act to a stated dispute; can advise on the appropriate business vehicle given stated objectives (liability, tax, governance, succession, investment); and can articulate the conversion process between business forms. (Partnership, agency, and unincorporated forms)
Practice scenarios
Pollock Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client is a 12-partner UK firm of consulting engineers that has operated as a general partnership under PA 1890 for 35 years. The senior partners are concerned about (a) joint and several liability — a recent claim against a competitor partnership for alleged negligence has highlighted the personal-asset exposure; (b) succession — the founding partners wish to retire and the firm has had difficulty admitting new partners willing to accept unlimited liability; (c) profit-sharing flexibility — the equal-shares default of the Act and the lock-step alternatives have become inflexible. They are considering conversion to an LLP.
Your goals
Led by Louis Brandeis Simulacrum, with Edward Coke Simulacrum on the constitutional foundation
The question
The closing module covers competition law and economic regulation as the legal framework that constrains anti-competitive conduct and protects competitive markets. Brandeis Simulacrum walks through UK competition law (Competition Act 1998 prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance; Enterprise Act 2002 merger control; cartel offences; the Competition and Markets Authority enforcement framework); the post-Brexit divergence from EU competition law; the principal sectoral economic regulators (Ofcom, Ofwat, Ofgem, FCA, PRA); the consumer protection framework (Consumer Rights Act 2015, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008); and the broader regulatory architecture of UK business — making the case that competition policy is the cornerstone of a market economy and that bigness is itself a hazard. The closing scenario applies the framework to a market-power abuse claim in a digital-platform context.
Outcome
The student can articulate the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998; can identify when a transaction triggers the merger control jurisdictional thresholds; can identify the principal sectoral regulators and their remit; and can frame an analysis of a competition-law issue including the relevant CMA enforcement mechanisms. (Competition law and economic regulation)
Practice scenarios
Brandeis Simulacrum gives you the case. Your client is a UK SME software developer whose product had been sold through a major digital-platform marketplace for five years, generating ~£3m of annual revenue. The platform owner has now launched its own competing product (a near-clone of your client's software, with similar features and a 40% lower price), has reduced the visibility of your client's product in search results, and has tied its competing product to other services the platform provides at no extra charge. Your client's revenue has dropped 60% in six months. The platform's market share in the UK is approximately 65% in the relevant product category.
Your goals