Yes, Applaa is completely free to download and use. There are no subscriptions, no in-app purchases, and no hidden fees. A Pro plan is available for users who want additional AI credits.

What age is Applaa for?

Applaa is designed for kids and young adults aged 7 to 20. The platform scales from beginner drag-and-drop coding to advanced Python, JavaScript, React, and AI/ML.

Is Applaa safe for children?

Yes. Applaa is fully COPPA compliant, shows no advertisements of any kind, uses AI content moderation on all generated content, and provides a parent visibility dashboard so parents can monitor their child's activity.

What can kids build with Applaa?

Kids can build web apps, mobile apps, games, and digital tools using AI assistance. They describe their idea in plain English and Applaa's AI builds working code instantly. Creations can be published to the Applaa Marketplace where kids can earn real money.

What coding languages does Applaa teach?

Applaa's Academy covers Python, JavaScript, React, TypeScript, HTML/CSS, and AI/ML concepts across 130+ free lessons and 150+ challenges.

Does Applaa work on Windows and Mac?

Yes. Applaa is available as a free desktop app for both Windows and macOS. No sign-up is required to get started.

All SQE mocks

Mock 163 Mock 165

SQE · Free Mock Test 164 of 250

Free SQE Mock Test 164 — 20 Questions + Full Answers

Solicitors Qualifying Examination · Trainee solicitors · SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul

Sections: FLK1 · Applaa proprietary paper — free to download and print

Download PDF Free Open in New Tab Attempt with AI Tutoring

No sign-up required · 100% free · Applaa proprietary content

Applaa SQE Mock Test 164

applaa-sqe-mock-164.pdf · 20 questions

Full screen Download

Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required

Save PDF

Sample Questions — SQE Mock 164

8 of 20 shown

Correct answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.

FLK1

A shopkeeper (Charlotte) places a vintage watch in the shop window with a price tag of £22,000. A customer (Yasmine) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?

A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.

✓ Worked Explanation

Core Concept: Invitation to Treat vs. Offer A binding contract requires a valid *offer* and *acceptance*. The display of goods in a shop window or on a shelf is an invitation to treat - an invitation for customers to make offers. It is fundamentally different from a legal offer, which can be accepted to form a contract. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. What is an Invitation to Treat?: A display of goods with a price tag is not an offer - it is merely an expression of willingness to deal on those ter

FLK1

A builder (Edward) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Olivia) for £5,000. Halfway through the job, the builder states they cannot finish unless the customer pays an extra £1,000. The customer agrees. After completion, the customer refuses to pay the extra £1,000. Under Williams v Roffey Bros, is the promise to pay the extra £1,000 binding?

A.No, because performing an existing contractual duty can never be good consideration.
B.Yes, if the customer obtained a practical benefit (such as avoiding a penalty clause to a third party) and there was no economic duress.
C.No, because a promise to pay more must be approved by the County Court under CPR regulations.
D.Yes, because oral contracts are automatically binding regardless of consideration.
E.No, because it violates Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

✓ Worked Explanation

Core Concept: Consideration and Practical Benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros) The traditional rule (Stilk v Myrick) held that performing an existing contractual duty cannot be good consideration. Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] modified this rule: performing an existing duty CAN be valid consideration if the promisee obtains a 'practical benefit'. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Traditional Rule: A builder promising to finish what they're already contractually bound to do provides nothing new - no consi

FLK1

A claimant (Arthur) makes a valid CPR Part 36 settlement offer to the defendant (Xavier) of £220,000. The defendant rejects the offer. The case goes to trial, and the claimant wins, obtaining judgment of £252,999. What is the primary costs consequence under Part 36?

A.The claimant must pay the defendant's costs on the indemnity basis.
B.The defendant must pay the claimant's costs on the indemnity basis, plus interest on those costs, from the expiry of the relevant offer period.
C.The court will split the trial costs equally between both parties.
D.All costs recovery is capped at the Small Claims Track limit.
E.The defendant is immune to costs penalties because they defended the claim in good faith.

✓ Worked Explanation

Core Concept: CPR Part 36 Offers and Cost Consequences A Part 36 offer is a formal settlement mechanism under CPR. When a claimant's Part 36 offer is beaten at trial (i.e., judgment exceeds the offer), the defendant faces automatic cost penalties designed to encourage early settlement. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Arthur's Offer: £220,000 - a valid Part 36 offer. 2. Xavier's Decision: Rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. 3. Trial Outcome: Arthur wins £252,999 - which *exceeds* the Part 36

FLK1

A shopkeeper (Wendy) places a vintage watch in the shop window with a price tag of £250,000. A customer (Kevin) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?

A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.

✓ Worked Explanation

FLK1

A director of Pinnacle Ventures Ltd (a private company limited by shares) wants to allot new shares to a new investor (Arthur) to raise capital of £25,000. The company has only one class of ordinary shares. Under the Companies Act 2006, which of the following is correct regarding the director's authority to allot these shares?

A.The director has automatic statutory authority to allot the shares without shareholder approval under Section 550, unless restricted by the articles.
B.The director must always obtain authorization by ordinary resolution of the shareholders under Section 551.
C.The director must obtain authorization by special resolution of the shareholders to allot any shares.
D.The director requires the approval of the Board of Trade before alloting any class of shares.
E.Authority is only required if the allotment would cause the company to exceed its authorised share capital as stated in the memorandum.

✓ Worked Explanation

Core Concept: Director's Authority to Allot Shares (Section 550 CA 2006) The Companies Act 2006 grants directors of private companies with a single class of shares a specific statutory power to allot shares of that class without requiring shareholder approval - unless the articles restrict this. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify Company Type: Pinnacle Ventures Ltd is a *private* company limited by shares with *one* class of ordinary shares. 2. Apply Section 550: Directors of such a company h

FLK1

A shopkeeper (Edward) places a designer coat in the shop window with a price tag of £220,000. A customer (Alice) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?

A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.

✓ Worked Explanation

FLK1

A shopkeeper (Laura) places a laptop in the shop window with a price tag of £15,000. A customer (Samuel) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?

A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.

✓ Worked Explanation

FLK1

Nora offered to sell a yacht to Penelope for £5,000. Penelope replied: 'I accept your offer, but I will pay £4,500.' Nora did not respond. Two days later, Penelope wrote to Nora saying: 'I accept your original offer of £5,000.' Is there a binding contract between Nora and Penelope?

A.Yes, because the second letter constituted a valid acceptance of the original offer.
B.Yes, because the original offer remained open and had not been revoked by the offeror.
C.No, because the counter-offer of the lower price killed the original offer, meaning it could no longer be accepted.
D.No, because a contract for sale of goods must be made in writing signed by both parties.
E.Yes, because the offeror's silence on the counter-offer constituted acceptance of the lower price.

✓ Worked Explanation

Core Concept: Counter-Offer and the Death of the Original Offer A counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer combined with a new offer on different terms. Once a counter-offer is made, the original offer is extinguished - it cannot be revived or accepted later. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Original Offer: Nora offers the yacht for £5,000. 2. Counter-Offer: Penelope replies with £4,500 - this is a counter-offer, NOT an acceptance. Under Hyde v Wrench (1840), this kills the original offer

Download the PDF for all 20 questions + full mark scheme

Download PDF

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this SQE mock exam free?+

Yes. All 250 Applaa SQE mock exams are completely free — no registration, no paywall. Download PDF or view in browser.

What is FLK1 in the SQE exam?+

FLK1 (Functioning Legal Knowledge 1) is the first part of the SQE1 assessment, testing substantive and procedural law across multiple legal practice areas with multiple-choice questions. Each Applaa SQE mock covers FLK1-style questions with full explanations.

How many SQE practice questions are in each mock?+

Each Applaa SQE mock test contains 20 functioning legal knowledge questions with worked explanations, mirroring the question style of the real SQE1 assessment.

Are these SQE mock papers relevant for 2025?+

Yes. Applaa's SQE mock papers are updated for the current SQE1 syllabus and are suitable for candidates sitting SQE1 in 2025 and 2026.