Free SQE Mock Test 18 — 20 Questions + Full Answers
Solicitors Qualifying Examination · Trainee solicitors · SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
Sections: FLK1 · Applaa proprietary paper — free to download and print
No sign-up required · 100% free · Applaa proprietary content
Applaa SQE Mock Test 18
applaa-sqe-mock-18.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 18
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A claimant was injured when a defendant (Charlotte), who was engaged in failing to secure scaffolding, caused an accident. The defendant admits they owed the claimant a duty of care and breached it, but argues that the claimant's own negligence contributed to the injury. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the legal effect of contributory negligence?
- A.It acts as a complete defense, and the claimant receives no damages.
- B.It reduces the claimant's damages to the extent that is just and equitable, reflecting the claimant's share of responsibility.
- C.It has no effect on damages but requires the claimant to pay the defendant's legal costs.
- D.It shifts the burden of proof to the claimant to show that they took all reasonable precautions.
- E.It renders the claim null and void, requiring allocation to criminal arbitration.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Contributory Negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945) Contributory negligence is a partial defence - it does not defeat the claim entirely, but reduces the damages awarded to reflect the claimant's own responsibility for their injury. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Defence: Charlotte admits negligence but argues the claimant also contributed to their own injury (e.g., not wearing a seatbelt, failing to follow safety instructions). 2. Legal Effect (LRCNA
A builder (Lucas) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Kevin) 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
A shopkeeper (Thomas) places a vintage watch in the shop window with a price tag of £95,000. A customer (Fredrick) 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
Prior to the formal incorporation of Nova Capital Ltd, a promoter (Quinn) signed a contract 'on behalf of the company' to purchase machinery from a supplier. The company is now incorporated. Which of the following best describes the liability of Quinn and the company on this pre-incorporation contract?
- A.The company is automatically bound by the contract upon incorporation, and the promoter is released.
- B.The contract is completely void and unenforceable by any party.
- C.The promoter is personally liable and entitled under the contract, subject to any agreement to the contrary, under Section 51 of the Companies Act 2006.
- D.The company and the promoter are jointly and severally liable automatically.
- E.The company can unilaterally ratify the contract without the supplier's agreement.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Pre-Incorporation Contracts (Section 51 CA 2006) A company cannot be a party to a contract before it legally exists. When a promoter signs a contract 'on behalf of' an unformed company, Section 51 CA 2006 provides the default rule: the promoter is personally bound. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Legal Status Before Incorporation: Nova Capital Ltd had no legal existence when Quinn signed the contract. There was no legal entity to be bound. 2. Apply Section 51: The contract takes effec
A claimant (Diana) has brought an action against a defendant (Laura) in the County Court for breach of contract, claiming £500,000 in damages. The defendant has filed a defense. In accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which track will this claim be allocated to?
- A.Small Claims Track
- B.Fast Track
- C.Intermediate Track
- D.Multi-Track
- E.Commercial Court Track
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: CPR Track Allocation The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) allocate civil claims to one of four procedural tracks based primarily on *financial value* (and sometimes complexity). Each track has different procedural rules, costs caps, and hearing formats. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Claim Value: The claim is for £500,000. 2. Apply the Track Thresholds: - Small Claims Track: £10,000 (for most claims; £1,000 for personal injury/housing disrepair) - Fast Track: > £10
A seller (Kevin) negligently makes a false statement of fact regarding the turnover of a business to a buyer (Penelope), inducing them to buy it. The buyer subsequently discovers the fraud. Which of the following describes the remedies available under the Misrepresentation Act 1967?
- A.The contract is automatically void, and the seller must be prosecuted criminally.
- B.Rescission of the contract and/or damages under Section 2(1) of the Act.
- C.The buyer can only recover damages and has no right to rescind the contract under any circumstances.
- D.The contract is binding, and no remedy is available since the buyer should have checked the accounts (caveat emptor).
- E.The seller is required to perform specific performance of the turnover projection.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Misrepresentation Act 1967 - Remedies The Misrepresentation Act 1967 classifies misrepresentation into three types (fraudulent, negligent, innocent) and provides different remedies for each. A negligent misrepresentation under Section 2(1) is the most commonly tested in SQE. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Type: A *negligent* false statement of fact made by Kevin to induce Penelope to buy. 2. Remedy Under Section 2(1): The innocent party (Penelope) may: - Rescind the c
An employee of Zephyr Services LLP negligently injures a customer (William) while driving a company delivery van to make a scheduled delivery. The customer sues Zephyr Services LLP. What is the legal doctrine that allows the employer to be held liable, and what is the test?
- A.Res Ipsa Loquitur; requires showing the van was in a defective condition.
- B.Vicarious liability; requires showing that the employee committed a tort in the course of their employment.
- C.Strict liability; requires showing the employer acted with malicious intent.
- D.Privity of liability; requires a signed agreement between the employer and the customer.
- E.Contributory liability; requires allocating the claim to the Multi-Track.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability makes an employer strictly liable for torts committed by their employee, where the tort occurs in the 'course of employment'. It is a form of secondary liability - the employer is liable even without their own fault. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Employer-Employee Relationship: The delivery driver is an employee of Zephyr Services LLP (not an independent contractor). 2. Course of Employment Test: Was the tort committed while perfo
A builder (Matthew) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (David) 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
Download the PDF for all 20 questions + full mark scheme
Download PDFFrequently 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.
Download This Mock
Free PDF — 20 questions with worked answers. Print it or attempt offline.
Download PDF FreeNo sign-up · No paywall · Applaa proprietary
Paper Info
- Exam
- SQE
- Mock number
- 18 of 250
- Questions
- 20
- Format
- Multiple Choice (MCQ)
- Sections
- 1
- Audience
- Trainee solicitors
- Timing
- SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
- Copyright
- Applaa Proprietary
Sections Covered
- FLK1
AI step-by-step guidance
Appy Buddy in the Applaa desktop app guides you through every question with Socratic AI tutoring — explains why each answer is right or wrong.
Download Applaa Free