Hello! I need help with a Civil Dispute Resolution homework task. I have been asked to try a past portfolio task as homework and I am struggling to grasp what the task requires. It requires that I critically evaluate a defence. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I am struggling to grasp what to say about the defence and in identifying what is wrong with the trainee's attempt at drafting the defence. I also need help with which civil procedure rules I could apply here? I will attach the task below. Please bare with me, it's a long one! :D

QUESTION

You are a trainee solicitor with the firm of Robinsons LLP.

You must assume that it is 4 February 2021.

Your firm has been instructed by Gemma Bryson, the managing director of Timeless Car Auctions Limited. The client company is a firm of auctioneers specialising in vintage and classic cars. It has been served with County Court proceedings taken by one of its former clients, Mr Joseph Hart. An acknowledgment of service has been filed on behalf of the client company indicating its intention to defend the entire claim.

Your supervising solicitor, Rebecca Jones, hands to you the attached proof of evidence of Gemma Bryson (Document A) and the particulars of claim (Document B). Rebecca Jones asks you to critically evaluate how paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive of the particulars of claim have been answered in the draft of the client's defence that has been prepared by another trainee (Document C). If you would have drafted any part of the defence differently, you must say how you would do so and why. Where appropriate, you should include relevant references to the Civil Procedure Rules or any other legal authorities. You do not have to redraft any part of the defence, but, if you do so, you must remember to give your reasons for doing so. You are not required to address any other parts of the particulars of claim or the draft defence.

Set out your answer in a memorandum to Rebecca Jones.

Document A

Gemma Bryson, managing director of Timeless Car Auctions Limited, will say:

1. Timeless Car Auctions Limited specialise in the sale by auction of vintage and classic cars.

2. I received a telephone call from Joseph Hart, the senior partner of McDouglas LLP, a local firm of accountants, on 4 September 2020. He explained that he had recently inherited 2 vintage cars from an uncle and that he wanted us to sell them at auction. He asked me to view the cars with him as soon as possible. I arranged to meet him at his home at 277 London Road, Christlethorpe on 11 September 2020.

3. After viewing the cars on 11 September 2020 and discussing their valuation with Mr Hart, he asked if they could be placed in our 2 December 2020 auction. I said that might be possible but I would need to check. I then asked him for details of each car that might be included in due course in an auction catalogue. He handed to me some typed notes that he had prepared. When I asked Mr Hart if he wanted us to independently verify these statements, he said that he had copied the notes from his uncle's records so they could not be doubted and I should not be so impertinent. The notes read as follows:

"1950 Bentley MKVI Park Ward Drophead Coupe. The body was restored in 2002 culminating in a full repaint & high-quality reupholstery. In 2012 the car was fitted with a fully overhauled 4 litre engine & the rear axle upgraded to high ratio and the car has been driven less than 500 miles since then."

"1947 Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Sport Superleggera. All parts are original. Glass by Sekurit, electronics by Magneti Marelli, optics of lights by Torino Siem and aluminium body by Touring."

4. At the conclusion of our meeting, Mr Hart again asked if the cars could be placed in our 2 December 2020 auction. I again said that I would need to double-check when I got back to my office. He said that in any auction the Bentley was to have a reserve price of 340,000 and the Alfa Romeo 420,000. I am certain that these are the reserve prices that he stated for each vehicle. I said that our commission at any auction would be 15% of a winning bid. I made it clear that if he placed the cars with us but then withdrew either or both cars from auction, he would have to reimburse us for all expenses incurred and work done. I told him that if both cars could be accommodated in our 2 December 2020 auction, I would telephone him and send him a letter setting out our proposed terms and conditions for him to consider. After checking the position when I got back to the office, it transpired that both cars could indeed be included as lots in our 2 December 2020 auction. I confirmed this in a telephone message that I left onMr Hart's voicemail on 12 September 2020. I sent him a letter dated 14 September 2020 which read as follows:

Dear Mr Hart,

Thank you for asking us to sell your 1950 Bentley MKVI Park Ward Drophead Coupe and 1947 Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Sport Superleggera

at our public auction on 2 December 2020. We confirm that we would be prepared to act for you on the following terms:

1. Our commission will be 15% of any sum realised at auction. Commission is payable from the proceeds of a successful auction sale.

2. If you withdraw one or both cars from the auction, you will reimburse us for work done and expenses incurred in and about the preparations for the auction, including but not limited to the storage, cleaning and security of the cars, production of photographs and all relevant internet and hard copy advertising. Reimbursement of those expenses is due by 31 December 2020 or earlier from any successful auction sale.

3. Unless we are notified to the contrary by you in writing before the auction, the cars will be put up for sale with the following reserve price:

Bentley 340,000; and

Alfa Romeo 420,000.

4. You warrant that you are entitled to have possession of and to sell the cars and are entitled to instruct us to sell them by auction. You further warrant that all the information supplied to us by you is accurate and you agree to indemnify us against any liability howsoever arising in respect of our receiving the cars or selling the cars at auction or in respect of any inaccuracies in the information that you supplied and against all costs and expenses incurred by us or on our behalf in dealing with any claim arising in that respect. Please confirm your acceptance of these terms if you wish matters to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

[Gemma Bryson]

5. I then had the following exchange of emails with Mr Hart before the auction. No other communications occurred between us.

His email of 28 September 2020 read as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 14 September. I accept your company's terms for auctioning both my cars on 2 December 2020. I look forward to receiving theauction catalogue in due course. I will sort out the arrangements for delivery of the cars to your premises nearer the time.

Gemma's email of 5 October 2020 read as follows:

I have set out below the terms and conditions for the auction as they will appear for your cars in the auction catalogue. Please let me know if you have any queries or require any amendments.

1. All vehicles are sold with all faults and imperfections and errors of description. Illustrations in catalogues or brochures are for identification only. Buyers should satisfy themselves prior to sale as to the condition of each lot and should exercise and rely on their own judgment as to whether the lot accords with its description. None of the seller, auctioneers, their servants or agents is responsible for errors of description or for the genuineness or authenticity of any lot; no warranty is given by the auctioneers, their servants or agents or by any seller to any buyer in respect of any lot, and any express or implied conditions or warranties are excluded.

2. The seller warrants to the auctioneers and to the buyer that he is the true owner of the lot or is properly authorised to sell the lot by the true owner and is able to transfer a good and marketable title to the lot free from any third-party claims. The seller will indemnify the auctioneers, their servants and agents and the buyer against any loss or damage suffered by them in consequence of any breach of this warranty on the part of the seller.

3. The buyer of any motor vehicle is responsible for complying with all legal requirements as to the construction and use of that vehicle and for obtaining all certificates, permits or other authorisations necessary before that vehicle can be used on any road.

His email of 9 October 2020 read as follows:

Thank you for your email of 4th instant. I have no queries about nor require any amendments to the auction terms and conditions. However, I must inform you that I have decided not to sell the Alfa Romeo. I therefore formally withdraw it from the auction.

Gemma's email of 16 October 2020 read as follows:

Following your decision to withdraw the Alfa Romeo from our 2 December 2020 auction, I am attaching a note of the work done and expenses incurred by us in and about the preparations for the auction of that car. I am also attaching our catalogue for the auction which now only includes the Bentley. The information about the Bentley is limited to that which you gave to me when we met on 11 September 2020. Please let me know if you have any queries or require any amendments. You will see that the terms and conditions for the auction of the Bentley that I emailed to you on 5 October are on page 27 of the catalogue.

His email of 19 October 2020 read as follows:

I confess to being impressed by your auction catalogue but far less impressed by the account you have sent. I trust the sale of the Bentley will proceed smoothly to a satisfactory conclusion for us both.

6. At the auction on 2 December 2020, the Bentley sold for 350,000. The buyer was Style Vehicles Plc of Leeds. We accounted to Mr Hart for the sale proceeds after deducting our commission of 52,500 and our expenses for the Alfa Romeo.

Document B

CLAIM NUMBER 219876

IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE

BETWEEN

MR JOSEPH HART

CLAIMANT

AND

TIMELESS CAR AUCTIONS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1 At all material times, the Defendant carried on business as an auctioneer of vintage and classic cars.

2 By an oral contract made on 11 September 2020 at 277 London Road, Christlethorpe, at a meeting between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant being represented by its managing director, Gemma Bryson, the Claimant instructed the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to sell by auction on 2 December 2020 the Claimant's 1950 Bentley MKVI Park Ward Drophead Coupe ("the Bentley").

3 It was an express term of the contract that the sale of the Bentley was to be subject to a reserve of 420,000.

4 It was an implied term of the contract that the Defendant would exercise reasonable skill and care in providing its services as auctioneers.

5 In breach of the contract, at the auction on 2 December 2020, the Defendant failed to sell the Bentley for at least the reserve price.

Particulars of Breach

The Defendant sold the Bentley to the highest bidder, Style Vehicles Plc for only 350,000.

6 In further breach of the contract, the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable skill and care in providing its services as auctioneers.

Particulars of Breach

6.1 The Defendant's auction catalogue described the Bentley as having had installed a fully overhauled 4.5 litre engine in 2012, whereas the Bentley's engine had only been partially overhauled in 2002.

6.2 The Defendant failed to impose on Style Vehicles Plc an exclusion of all conditions and warranties as to the fitness or quality of the Bentley.

7 As a consequence of the Defendant's breaches of the contract, the Claimant suffered a loss on the sale of the Bentley. In addition, the Claimant was threatened with legal proceedings by Style Vehicles Plc for misrepresentation as to the condition of the Bentley's engine. The Claimant reasonably compromised that claim by making a payment of 50,000 to Style Vehicles Plc.

8 By reason of the breaches of the contract, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.

Particulars of Loss and Damages

8.1 Loss on the sale: 70,000.

8.2 Compensation paid to Style Vehicles Plc: 50,000

9 The Claimant claims interest on damages awarded under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 for such period and at such rate as the court sees fit.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(a) Damages pursuant to paragraph 8 above; and

(b) Interest pursuant to paragraph 9 above.

DOCUMENT C - Trainee Attempt

Document C

CLAIM NUMBER 219876

IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE

BETWEEN

MR JOSEPH HART

CLAIMANT

AND

TIMELESS CAR AUCTIONS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

[DRAFT] DEFENCE

1. Paragraph 1 of the particulars of claim is admitted.

2. Paragraph 2 of the particulars of claim is admitted.

3. Paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim is denied.

4. Yes, it was an implied term of the contract that the Defendant would exercise reasonable skill and care in providing its services as auctioneers.

5. Paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim is denied.

6. Paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim is denied.

7. No admissions are made as to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the particulars of claim as the Defendant has no knowledge of those matters.

Dated: [ ]

Robinsons, solicitors

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence 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 to make this statement on behalf of the Defendant.

Signed:

GEMMA BRYSON, managing director of the Defendant.

The Defendant's solicitors are Robinsons LLP of 36 Avenue Way, Christlethorpe, Guildshire GU18 9ZX, document exchange box number 1475 Christlethorpe (reference is TCA/Q/TLB/.1234) which is also the Defendant's address for service