A connundrum
Ok, so I'm still really struggling with where to fit estoppel into my essay and still manage to consider the core issue (contract) with sufficient detail and stay within the word limit.
The Assessment task is this (verbatum):
Read the case of Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v. Marks & Spencer plc. [2001] EWCA Civ 274. In your own words describe the concerns about awarding relief under Contract Law with which the justices are grappling. Explain why the court could not establish a contractual relationship between the parties which was enforceable.
It says nothing about estoppel, and the judges themselves consider the issues sepearately - making a clear distinction between contract and the estoppel arguments brought up by counsel. I'm wondering if it would be sufficient if I stick in a sentence (or two) to this effect which will clearly sign post that I've recognised the issue, but purposefully carved it out of my analysis. Does clear and purposeful win the race?
My other concern is that since we haven't studied it in class yet (and the textbooks - I've looked at three - on the matter are not clear) is that I will mke a glaring error and end up losing precious points. If I took the risk and did it well, there is a chance for bonus points, but potentially at the cost of my treatment of the contract principles. (For those of you not in the know, a 75 is typically the highest grade given in the English educational system and they've come out and said that anything above an 80 is unheard of in this school).
Have I mentioned that I'm still significantly over my 1,000 word limit? *sigh*
The Assessment task is this (verbatum):
Read the case of Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v. Marks & Spencer plc. [2001] EWCA Civ 274. In your own words describe the concerns about awarding relief under Contract Law with which the justices are grappling. Explain why the court could not establish a contractual relationship between the parties which was enforceable.
It says nothing about estoppel, and the judges themselves consider the issues sepearately - making a clear distinction between contract and the estoppel arguments brought up by counsel. I'm wondering if it would be sufficient if I stick in a sentence (or two) to this effect which will clearly sign post that I've recognised the issue, but purposefully carved it out of my analysis. Does clear and purposeful win the race?
My other concern is that since we haven't studied it in class yet (and the textbooks - I've looked at three - on the matter are not clear) is that I will mke a glaring error and end up losing precious points. If I took the risk and did it well, there is a chance for bonus points, but potentially at the cost of my treatment of the contract principles. (For those of you not in the know, a 75 is typically the highest grade given in the English educational system and they've come out and said that anything above an 80 is unheard of in this school).
Have I mentioned that I'm still significantly over my 1,000 word limit? *sigh*