Elisa Corvalanasks you to:

1. critically evaluate how paragraphs 1 to 8 inclusive of the Particulars of Claim have been answered in the draft of the client's Defence;

and

1. critically evaluate how the Counterclaim has been drafted.

If you would have drafted any part of the Defence and Counterclaim differently, you must say how you would do so and why. Where appropriate, you should include relevant references to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or any other legal authorities.

You do not have to redraft any part of the Defence or Counterclaim, but, if you do, you must remember to give your reasons for doing so.

You are not required to address any other parts of the Particulars of Claim nor the heading and ending of the draft Defence and Counterclaim.

The Defence and Counterclaim will be dated 22 January 2024.

You must set out your answer in a memorandum to Elisa Corvalan.

NOTE TO CANDIDATES ABOUT THE WORD COUNT

Donot include in your word count the following:

(a) any of the material that you copy directly from Documents A to D inclusive; and

(b) any material that you copy directly from the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or any other legal authorities.

QUESTIUN Save as set out below, none of the documents referred to in this Question are produced for the purpose of this Assessment. You are a trainee solicitor with the firm of ULaw LLP of 36 Avenue Way, Weyford, Guildshire GU18 92 For the purposes of this Assessment, you must assume that it is 22 January 2024. Your firm has been instructed by Beatrice Ruzi, the sales director of Patronus Rations Plc. The client company manufacture and sell agricultural foodstuff. It has been served with High Court proceedings taken by one of its former clients, Armenta Estates Limited. An acknowledgment of service has been filed on behalf of the client company indicating its intention to defend the entire claim. Your supervising solicitor, Elisa Corvalan hands to you the Particulars of Claim (Document A below). the proof of evidence of Beatrice Ruzi (Document B below), and the report of Evelyne Schmidt (Document C below). There is also a draft of the client's Defence and Counterclaim (Document D below) that has been prepared by another traines. Elisa Corvalan asks you to: (a) critically evaluate how paragraphs 1 to 8 inclusive of the Particulars of Claim have been answered in the draft of the client's Defence; and (b) critically evaluate how the Counterclaim has been drafted. If you would have drafted any part of the Defence and Counterclaim differently, you must say how you would do so and why. Where appropriate, you should include relevant references to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or any other legal authorities. You do not have to redraft any part of the Defence or Counterclaim, but, if you do, you must remember to give your reasons for doing so. You are not required to address any other parts of the Particulars of Claim nor the heading and ending of the draft Defence and Counterclaim. The Defence and Counterclaim will be dated 22 January 2024. You must set out your answer in a memorandum to Elisa Corvalan. NOTE TO CANDIDATES ABOUT THE WORD COUNT Do not include in your word count the following: beb3f2bc81d377 cd34i1e5d21al 1docack8h8e5a doce Page 2 of 10 & The University of Law Limited (a) any of the material that you copy directly from Documents A to D inclusive; and (b) any material that you copy directly from the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or any other legal authorities. Document 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION WEYFORD DISTRICT REGISTRY CLAIM NUMBER 13572 BETWEEN ARMENTA ESTATES LIMITED Claimant and PATRONUS RATIONS PLC Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. At all material times the Claimant's business was that of breeding and selling cattle and the Defendant's business was that of manufacturing and selling agricultural foodstuff. 2. By awritten agreement (the Agreement) made on 23 March 2023 between the Claimant and Defendant, the Defendant agreed to sell to the Claimant 925 metric tonnes of cattle fodder (the Cattle Fodder) at a price of 315,000. A copy of the Agreement is attached. 3. The Claimant bought the Cattle Fodder from the Defendant who sold it in the course of its business. It was an implied term of the Agreement that the Cattle Fodder should be of satisfactory quality. 4. In purported performance of the Agreement the Defendant delivered the Cattle Fodder to the Claimant on 1 May 2023 when the Claimant paid the Defendant the agreed first instalment of the price of 175,000. 5. In breach of the implied term, the Cattle Fodder delivered by the Defendant was not of satisfactory quality. PARTICULARS OF BREACH 51 The maximum content of aflatoxin B2 relative to agricultural foodstuff for cattle with a moisture content of between 9.2% and 11.4% is 0.02 parts per million under The Animal Feed (Compaosition, Marketing and Use) (England) Regulations 2015. The content of aflatoxin B2 in the Cattle Fodder was 0.19 parts per million. bcb5f2bc01d37Tod2 4 1e3d2 1al ldccack@bBeladoce Page 2of 10 The University of Law Limited k-2019-20-general-feedbackpdf/ 52 53 54 The Cattle Fodder contained moisture in excess of 11.4% making it susceptible to the growth of Aspergillus parasiticus mould and to the development of the aflatoxin B2 mycotoxin. Further., or alternatively, the sacks in which the Cattle Fodder was supplied by the Defendant were not airtight making the Cattle Fodder susceptible to excess moistore and in turn to the growth of Aspergillus parasiticus mould and to the development of the aflatoxin B2 mycotoxin. Further, or alternatively, the Cattle Fodder contained Aspergillus parasiticus mould which led to the development of the aflatoxin B2 mycotoxin. As a consequence of the Defendant's breach of the Agreement, the level of aflatoxin B2 mycotoxin in the Cattle Fodder cansed a number of the Claimant's cattle to become distressed, agitated and fatigued within a week of consuming the Cattle Fodder. Others suffered from yellowing of their skin and nansea. By the time the cattle were diagnosed on 13 May 2023 as suffering from mycotoxicosis, 31 cattle had died and 97 cattle had to be destroyed. The Claimant had to source replacement cattle foodstuff. Due to lost production the Claimant incurred a loss of profits. The Claimant has suffered loss as a result of the Defendant's breach of the Agreement and claims damages. PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE 71 The cost of disposing of the dead cattle and destroying infected cattle: 31,785 and associated veterinary fees 42.621. 72 The cost of replacement cattle: 62,228. 73 Estimated loss of profits: 167.451. T4 The Claimant had to replace the remaining unusable Cattle Fodder ata cost of 139,900. The Claimant claims interest on damages awarded under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for such period and at such rate as the court thinks fit. ABC Solicitors LLP ABC Solicitors LLP Dated: 7 January 2024 STATEMI ENT OF TRUTH The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement of truth. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or BRI aS T oAt lenas 2] Tdocachibde vz dock Tage fof 11 & The University of Law Limited causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed: Ingrid Terland Dated: 7 January 2024 INGRID TERLAND, Managing Director of the Claimant The Claimant's solicitors are ABC Solicitors LLP of 13B Summer Building, Low Lane, London N1 9AA (reference afd/MB/17.98) where they will accept service on behalf of the Claimant To: The Court Manager and the Defendant. Crop one question at a time bcb5f26:91d377cd34fle5d21alldocachBbbeSa. docx Page 5 of 10 The University of Low LimitedThis is the Agreement referred to in Paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF CATTLE FODDER This AGREEMENT is made on 23 March 2023 DEFINITIONS The Seller: Patronus Rations Plc. The Purchaser: Armenta Estates Limited. The Cattle Fodder: 925 metric tonnes of the Seller's Commercial Cattle Fodder Number One. TERMS 1 . The Seller agrees to supply and deliver the Cattle Fodder to the Purchaser by or on 1 May 2023. 2. The Purchaser agrees to pay to the Seller the sum of $315,000 payable: (a) as to f175,000 on delivery of the Cattle Fodder in accordance with clause 1 above; and (b) as to the balance of $140,000 by no later than 1 August 2023. 3. If the Purchaser fails to pay any sum to the Seller on any date set by clause 2 above, the Purchaser shall pay interest on the sum or sums due (from and including the day the payment or payments became due) at 10% per annum. Interest shall accrue at that rate both before and after any judgment. 1 Note to candidates only extracts from the Agreement are produced and candidates must assume that there are no other relevant terms in the Agreement for the purpose of this Assessment. bcb5f2bc91d377cd34fledllalldocacb8be5a.docx Page 6 of 10 @ The University of Law LimitedDocument B BEATRICE RUZI, company director of 54 Chertsey Avenue, Weyford, Guildshire GU1 9AA, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS. 1. I am the Sales Director of the Defendant company, Patronus Rations Plc. I make this statement in response to the Particulars of Claim that have been served by the Claimant company, Armenta Estates Limited. 2. The Defendant company has been manufacturing and selling agricultural foodstuff for the last 20 years. I have been its chief Sales Director for the last 6 years. 3. I knew nothing of the Claimant's business until I was approached in January 2023 by its managing director, Ingrid Terland to supply fodder to its local farm where it breeds cattle and sells the meat to various wholesalers. I sold her 925 metric tonnes of cattle fodder for f315,000. On 23 March 2023 she signed, on behalf of Armenta Estates Limited, our written agreement terms that are attached to the Particulars of Claim. 4. The cattle fodder was delivered to the Claimant's farm premises on 1 May 2023. The Claimant then paid the first instalment of the purchase price by bank transfer. 5. On 13 May 2023, I received a telephone call from Ingrid Terland complaining that the cattle had been infected with a disease which she said they had caught from the fodder we had supplied. I had our in-house expert, Evelyne Schmidt conduct an investigation for which she prepared a report ( Document C below). Signed: Beatrice Ruzi BEATRICE RUZI Dated: 14 January 2024 bobof2bc91d377ed34fled2lal IdocachShoeSa.docx Page 7 of 10 The University of Law LimitedDocument C Report of Evelyne Schmidt BSc, M3c, PhD (Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) 2 June 2023 1 | have been asked by Beatrice Ruzi to investigate the allegations made by Armenta Estates Limited following the supply to it of 925 metric tonnes of Commercial Cattle Fodder Number One under an agreement dated 23 March 2023. 'We used wheat and several additives in the cattle fodder supplied to Armenta Estates Limited that we had bought from a Canadian company, Cereal Sown Inc. It is a regular supplier we have used for years without incident. We are well aware that the maximum content of aflatoxin B2 relative to agricultural foodstuff for catile with a moisture content of between 9.2% and 11.4% is 0.03 parts per million under The Animal Feed (Composition, Marketing and Use) (England) Regulations 2015, Our records show that before the cattle fodder was dispatched to Armenta Estates Limited it was at 0.0241 parts per million. In addition, the moisture content was recorded at 9.9% and the Aspergillus parasiticus mould was not detected. The sacks in which the catile fodder was supplied were manufactured and sold to us by a Suffolk based company, Packet Parcels Limited. We have regularly purchased sacks from them since around 2017 and =so they know hat we use the sacks for animal foodstuff and that the sacks have to be airtight. On 26 January 2023 we entered into a written agreement with Packet Parcels Limited for the supply of 14,250 sacks for 2,170 to be used for Armenta Estates Limited's fodder. From tests that | have conducted | am satisfied that he sacks are made of polypropylene and were airtight. n my opinion the cattle fodder was safe, durable and fit to be fed to Armenta Estates Limited's caftle. But all that depended on Armenta Estates Limited correctly storing and feeding their cattle with the fodder. Last week | was given access by Armenta Estates Limited to a shed on its arm where it is still storing the cattle fodder we supplied. They have disposed of the rest of it which had been stored in similar sheds. | recorded emperatures of between 22C and 26C in that shed. Thg maximum emperature for the storage of the catile fodder we supplied is 20C as stated on each sack. In my opinion that excessive temperature led to an increase in he moisture content of the cattie fodder we supplied making it susceptible to he growth of Aspergillus parasiticus mould and to the development of the aflatoxin B2 mycotoxin. E Schmidt Evelyne Schmidt bch5f2bc91d377cd34fleSd21al 1dcoackibfeSa dooe Page B of 10 The University cf Laww Limited Document D IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION WEYFORD DISTRICT REGISTRY CLAIM NUMBER 13572 BETWEEN ARMENTA ESTATES LIMITED Claimant and PATRONUS RATIONS PLC Defendant [Draft] DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENCE 1. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 2. Asto paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim, it is the Claimant who is in breach of the Agreement as the Claimant has only paid the Defendant the first instalment due under the Agreement. 3. Astoparagraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, of course the Defendant sold the Caftle Fodder to the Claimant during the course of its business but the only terms are those in the written Agreement of 23 March 2023. 4 Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. 6. No admissions are made as to paragraphs 6, 7 and & of the Particulars of Claim as the Defendant has no knowledge of those matters. COUNTERCLAIM 1. The Claimant has failed to pay the Defendant the sum of 140,000. 2. The Defendant is entitled to interest on the sum of 140,000. Dated: 22 January 2024 ULawLLP b 5f2hc91d3 T o3 Sfle5d2lalldcoackSbbeSadooe Page 10 of 10 @ The University of Lewr Limie=d STATEMENT OF TRUTH The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence and Counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement. Signed: Full name printed: BEATRICE RUZI Office or Position held: Sales Director of the Defendant company. Dated: The Defendant's solicitors are ULaw LLP of 36 Avenue Way, Weyford, Guildshire GU18 9ZX where documents should be sent. To the Claimant and the Court bobst2held37Ted34fled2TalldocachNhoeSa.docx Page Il of 10 The University of Law Limited