SQE1 Playbook
Best for complete SQE1 prep. Includes FLK1 and FLK2.
£59
Current pageLoading page…
Loading page…
Loading study pack…
Loading study pack…
SQE1 study pack
Mapped for active recall.
Recall practice for the complete SQE1 route — answer-key marking, a focused repair for the most important gap, and a review queue that brings the relevant step or topic back when due.
Each topic breaks into small, recallable building blocks. Open any subject to preview its topics — and try blurting one.
Sign in to start, or try one complete topic free. New to the method? See why Paper Tiger beats rereading
Questions, cancellations or complaints: hello@paper-tiger.co.uk · see the Terms for cancellation and refunds.
Pack options loaded.The essentials at a glance. Open any question for more detail.
Essential cookies support sign-in and security. Optional analytics are off unless you choose to turn them on.
Paper Tiger is operated by Paper Tiger Learning Technologies Ltd.
Registered in England and WalesCompany 17308917
Registered office: 167-169 Great Portland Street, 5th Floor, London, W1W 5PFJanuary 2027 SQE1
The £59 complete Playbook includes both FLK1 and FLK2. Choose a £35 focused Playbook only if you need one assessment half.
Best for complete SQE1 prep. Includes FLK1 and FLK2.
£59
Current pageFocused route for FLK1 only.
£35
View FLK1 PlaybookFocused route for FLK2 only.
£35
View FLK2 PlaybookBuy the pack to mark every block against the answer key, or try one full topic free.
Open a topic, read its short primer, answer one building block from memory, then use the recorded result and review history to schedule the relevant return task.
Pack workspace preview · Tort
Guided recall
Build the topic in smaller answers before attempting the full Mastery Check.
Step 2 of 7
Known or knowable co-worker risk
In a claim that an employer failed to provide competent staff, why is a single incident of co-worker violence or bullying usually not enough to show breach unless the employer knew or ought to have known of the risk posed by that co-worker?
This issue appears when the immediate harm is done by one worker to another, but the real negligence question is whether the employer failed in its own duty to run the workforce safely.
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.
Building block · Contract formation
What you said — use this when reading the feedback below.
The court assesses formation objectively from the parties' words and conduct1. It must identify an offer and acceptance before considering remedies2, 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 fails3.
Progress and review timing are based on this result.
You handled the formation analysis in the right order and identified the uncertainty signals. Tighten only the final consequence of finding no contract.
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.
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.
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.
Paper Tiger uses your study time and saved results to forecast new guided work, due recall and repairs. See the next seven days, projected readiness at 30 and 60 days, and whether your target date is still on track.
Example study forecast · Tort
45 min/study day · projected finish around 26 Sep
2h 7m planned
Your blurt
30 days · 60 days · target
New learning and repairs
Recall and synthesis ramp up
Capable target · on track