Pack workspace preview · Legal Services
Internal suspicion reports and MLRO
Guided recall
Build the topic in smaller answers before attempting the full Mastery Check.
Current task
Step 1 of 5
Report to the MLRO
A junior fee earner suspects money laundering during a file review. Who should they tell inside their firm, and what is the correct internal route?
Internal suspicion reporting is the bridge between a fee earner noticing a problem and the firm deciding whether to report externally.
01
Answer-key marking
See what you got right and the precise point to repair.
02
Targeted repair
Fix the gap without repeating everything you already know.
03
Spaced return
The relevant step or topic comes back in Review when it is due.
See what a marked result looks like
Feedback
Building block · Contract formation
Nearly there
One last refinementYour blurt
What you said — use this when reading the feedback below.
The court assesses formation objectively from the parties' words and conduct. It must identify an offer and acceptance before considering remedies, then check consideration, intention and certainty. Here, 'probably', 'around GBP10' and board approval all point away from a final offer, while 'agreed in principle' may not be final acceptance. But the retailer spent money preparing for delivery, so it should still be able to recover contractual damages if formation fails.
Feedback
Progress and review timing are based on this result.
Overall verdict
You handled the formation analysis in the right order and identified the uncertainty signals. Tighten only the final consequence of finding no contract.
What you got right
- “objectively from the parties' words and conduct” states the correct formation test.
- “identify an offer and acceptance before considering remedies” keeps the analysis in the right order.
How to improve
Polish, not repair — the substance is in place.
“it should still be able to recover contractual damages if formation fails” is too broad. If there is no contract, contractual expectation damages are unavailable; any alternative claim would need its own legal basis.
Best answer
Formation is assessed objectively, and the conditional, approximate language plus the need for board approval point away from a final offer; ‘agreed in principle’ is unlikely to be an unqualified acceptance. Consideration and commercial intention do not cure that lack of certainty and commitment. If formation fails, the retailer's main contractual risk is that it cannot claim contractual expectation damages merely because it incurred preparatory expenditure.
Quick check
Why does the retailer's preparatory spending not itself create a right to contractual damages?
Try to recall it first, then reveal to check yourself.