Coursework Question
In Re Harvard Securities Ltd [1998] B.C.C. 567 (Ch), 578 Neuberger J states:
In all the circumstances, therefore, it seems to me that the correct way for me, at first instance, to explain the difference between the result in Hunter, and that in Wait , London Wine and Goldcorp , is on the ground that Hunter was concerned with shares, as opposed to chattels. Taking account of primary (principally, cases) and secondary (academic authorities) sources, critically analyse and assess Neuberger J’s statement.
TIP: Do not merely describe. Don’t just tell what the law is. Play the legal academic/judge. Do we understand the rationale for the different treatment? Is it rigorous, consistent? Fungibility? Interchangeable things, etc vs wine…the wine was seperated or ascertained. They remove the bottles from general stock.
Use more cases rather than less. Remember It’s not about opinion. Heavy footnotes expected. Recognise obiter.

You must include footnotes, a bibliography of relevant sources consulted, and lists of the statutes and cases referred to in your answer. Your footnotes should comprise citation references only and should not contain additional argument – any argument included in footnotes will be disregarded. The word limit refers to the main body of the coursework and does not include front cover, title page, contents page, footnotes, bibliography or lists of statutes and cases.