SQE1 Wills and Administration of Estates

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Validity and formalities

Ruth Okafor, a retired teacher, signs her will in the living room in front of two friends, Dev and Helen, who are both present at the same time. Ruth then leaves for a hospital appointment. Dev and Helen take the will into the hallway, out of Ruth's sight, and sign it there as witnesses. Ruth dies the following year. Which statement best describes the validity of the will?

1. The will is valid because both witnesses saw Ruth sign and then signed before she died.
2. The will is valid because section 9 only requires the witnesses to sign in the presence of each other.
3. The will is invalid because each witness must attest and sign, or acknowledge a signature, in the presence of the testator.
4. The will is invalid because the witnesses must sign the will before the testator signs it.
5. The will is valid if Dev and Helen later confirm that Ruth intended the document to be her will.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 requires the will to be in writing and signed by the testator. The signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time. Each witness must then attest and sign, or acknowledge a signature, in the presence of the testator. The witnesses do not have to sign in each other's presence. Here Dev and Helen signed out of Ruth's sight, so the last requirement is not met and the will is not validly executed. Later confirmation of Ruth's intention cannot cure the defect, because the formalities are mandatory.

Wills Act 1837, s 9

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Testamentary capacity

In March, Hamid Siddiqui, aged 81, gave clear instructions to his solicitor for a will leaving his estate equally to his three children. The solicitor prepared the will in those terms. In April, Hamid's dementia worsened. When the will was brought to him, he said 'this is what I asked for' and signed it with two witnesses. Medical evidence suggests he could not have understood the full will at the time of signing. Which statement best describes the validity of the will?

1. The will is invalid because Hamid must have full capacity at the moment of signing.
2. The will may be valid if Hamid had capacity when giving instructions and at signing knew he was executing a will carrying them out.
3. The will is valid because a properly executed will is conclusive evidence of capacity.
4. The will is invalid unless a doctor witnessed the signing.
5. The will is valid because capacity is judged only at the date the instructions are taken, whatever his later state.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Capacity is judged by the Banks v Goodfellow test. Where a testator has capacity when giving instructions, the will is prepared in accordance with them, and at execution the testator remembers giving instructions and believes the will carries them out, the will is valid even if he can no longer understand its detail. That is the rule in Parker v Felgate. Hamid's words 'this is what I asked for' support that. The tempting answer is that capacity is always needed at signing, but the Parker v Felgate rule relaxes this. His state at signing still matters, so the date of instructions alone is not enough.

Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171; Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Knowledge and approval

Mrs Vance, aged 85, is a long-standing client of your firm. She tells the partner, Mr Lewis, that she wants to change her will to leave him £80,000 'because you have been so kind to me for years'. Mr Lewis would normally draft the will. Under the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, what should Mr Lewis do?

1. Decline to act and recommend that she instructs another firm, because he has a personal interest in the will.
2. Act, provided Mrs Vance gives her informed consent in writing to his interest.
3. Act, provided a colleague in the same firm supervises the work and signs a file note.
4. Act, but reduce the gift to a modest sum so the conflict becomes acceptable.
5. Act, after asking Mrs Vance's family to confirm that she has capacity and is not under pressure.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Paragraph 6.1 of the Code says you do not act if you have a conflict of interest with your client. A substantial gift to the drafting solicitor is a personal interest. The exceptions based on informed written consent in para 6.2 apply only to conflicts between clients, not to conflicts between solicitor and client. A substantial gift to the draftsman also raises suspicion, so the will could be challenged on knowledge and approval. Mr Lewis should decline and suggest another firm. Supervision by a colleague in the same firm does not remove the conflict.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 6.1; Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Undue influence and duress

Maria Rossi, aged 79, lived with her daughter Eliza, who cared for her. Eliza regularly told Maria that she had given up her career to care for her and that the house should be hers. After months of this, Maria changed her will to leave the house to Eliza rather than to her three children equally. Maria's son Luis says the will was made under undue influence. Which statement best describes the law?

1. Because Eliza was Maria's carer, a presumption of undue influence arises and Eliza must disprove it.
2. The will is invalid because Eliza's repeated requests influenced Maria's decision.
3. Luis must prove that the pressure overbore Maria's own judgment; persuasion or appeals to gratitude alone are not enough.
4. The will is invalid unless Maria received independent legal advice before signing.
5. The will is valid whatever Eliza did, because only the formalities in section 9 matter.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. For a will, undue influence means coercion that overbears the testator's free will so the will is the wishes of the influencer. There is no presumption of undue influence in wills, even for a carer or relative, so the burden is on the person alleging it (Hall v Hall; Wingrove v Wingrove). Persuasion, appeals to affection or gratitude and even importunity that stops short of coercion are not undue influence. Repeated pressure can amount to undue influence, but only if it overbore Maria's judgment, and Luis would have to prove that. The presumption that applies to some lifetime gifts does not apply to wills.

Hall v Hall (1868) LR 1 P&D 481; Wingrove v Wingrove (1885) 11 PD 81

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Rectification and construction

Hana Petrov instructed a firm to include a gift of £10,000 to her niece Ella. By a typing error the will, which Hana signed correctly, reads '£1,000'. Hana died. A grant of probate was issued two months ago. Ella wants the figure corrected. Which statement best describes the position?

1. The court has no power to alter the words of a will after the testator has died.
2. The only remedy is a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
3. The court can rectify only if every other beneficiary consents in writing.
4. The court can rectify a clerical error, and an application should normally be made within six months of the grant.
5. The court can rectify only if the application is made within twelve months of Hana's death.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 allows the court to rectify a will to carry out the testator's intentions if the will fails to do so because of a clerical error or a failure to understand instructions. Here a typing error is a clerical error. Section 20(2) says an application should not be made after six months from the date of the grant, without the court's permission. Ella's application is in time. The consent of other beneficiaries is not needed, though they may be joined as parties. Evidence such as the attendance note and drafts would be used.

Administration of Justice Act 1982, s 20

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Revocation by marriage

In 2019 Nadia Karim made a valid will leaving her whole estate to her sister. The will does not mention marriage. In 2025 Nadia, who has no children, married Samir. She did not make a new will. Nadia has now died with an estate worth £250,000. Samir survived her by more than 28 days. Which statement best describes the effect of the marriage on the will?

1. The will remains valid because marriage revokes only gifts made to a former spouse.
2. The will was revoked by the marriage, and the estate passes to Samir under the intestacy rules.
3. The will was revoked only as to the gift to the sister, and Samir takes under the intestacy rules.
4. The will remains valid, but Samir can ask the court to cancel it as of right.
5. The will was revoked only if Nadia told her solicitor about the marriage.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Section 18(1) of the Wills Act 1837 provides that a will is revoked by the testator's marriage or civil partnership, unless an exception applies. Nadia's will does not show that it was made in expectation of marrying Samir, so the exception in s 18(3) does not apply. The whole will is revoked and Nadia died intestate. With a spouse and no issue, Samir takes the whole estate under s 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. The tempting option that only the gift to the sister fails is wrong, because revocation affects the whole will.

Wills Act 1837, s 18; Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Effect of divorce

Kris Novak's will leaves her whole estate to her husband Adam and appoints him sole executor. Kris petitioned for divorce. A conditional order was made on 3 March, but she had not applied for the final order when she was killed in a road accident on 20 April. She had not changed her will. Which statement best describes the position?

1. The will is unaffected because the marriage has not yet been dissolved by a final order.
2. The gift to Adam lapsed on 3 March, when the conditional order was made.
3. The whole will was revoked on 3 March, so the estate passes under the intestacy rules.
4. The gift to Adam is valid but Adam is disqualified from acting as executor.
5. The court decides whether Adam should take, having regard to the breakdown of the marriage.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Section 18A of the Wills Act 1837 provides that where a marriage is dissolved or annulled, the former spouse is treated as having died on the date of the final order, so gifts lapse and appointment as executor fails. A conditional order does not dissolve the marriage. Kris died before any final order, so Adam was still her spouse. The will operates as written and Adam takes the estate and may act as executor. The tempting option that the conditional order triggers lapse is wrong, because the marriage ends only with the final order.

Wills Act 1837, s 18A; Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 1

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Revocation by destruction

Mr Anwar made a will leaving his house to his daughter. The original was last seen in his desk at home. He told a friend that he was unhappy with the will. After he died, the original could not be found anywhere, although a photocopy exists. His daughter wants to prove the will. Which statement best describes the legal position?

1. The will is valid and the daughter can prove the photocopy without further steps.
2. The will is conclusively revoked because the original cannot be found.
3. The will is revoked only if a witness saw Mr Anwar destroy it.
4. The estate passes on intestacy because a lost will has no effect.
5. A presumption arises that he destroyed it intending to revoke it, which the daughter may try to rebut with evidence.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Under s 20 of the Wills Act 1837 a will is revoked by burning, tearing or otherwise destroying it with the intention to revoke. Where the original was last in the testator's possession and cannot be found at death, the court presumes he destroyed it intending to revoke. The presumption is rebuttable. The daughter would need evidence, for example that the will was lost or destroyed by accident, and then apply for the copy to be admitted to probate. Mr Anwar's remark to his friend makes rebuttal harder but does not make revocation conclusive.

Wills Act 1837, s 20; Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, r 54

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Revocation by later will or codicil

In 2018 Mei Lin made a valid will leaving her whole estate to her sister. In 2023 she made a second valid will, properly witnessed, saying only: 'I give my house at 5 Elm Road to my nephew Kai.' The second will contains no revocation clause and appoints no executor. Mei has died. Which statement best describes the effect of the two wills?

1. The 2023 will revokes the 2018 will entirely, so the estate passes under the intestacy rules.
2. The 2023 will revokes the 2018 will only so far as they are inconsistent, so Kai takes the house and the sister takes the rest.
3. Only the 2023 will is valid because a testator can have only one will.
4. The 2023 will is invalid because it is incomplete and does not appoint an executor.
5. The two wills cancel each other out and the estate passes under the intestacy rules.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. A later will revokes an earlier will if it contains a revocation clause or is wholly inconsistent. Without a revocation clause, the later will revokes the earlier one only to the extent that the two are inconsistent (Wills Act 1837, s 20; a codicil or later will works in the same way). Kai's gift of the house conflicts with the 2018 gift of everything to the sister, so it prevails as to the house. The rest of the 2018 will stands, so the sister takes the remainder. Both documents are read together and proved as Mei's will.

Wills Act 1837, s 20; Wills Act 1837, s 9

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Alterations to a will

Pritesh signed a will leaving '£5,000 to Tia'. After the will was executed, Pritesh crossed out '£5,000' with a single line and wrote '£15,000' above it, adding his own initials in the margin. No witness initialled the change. The original figure can still be read clearly. Pritesh has died. Which statement best describes the position?

1. Tia takes £15,000, because the alteration shows the testator's later intention.
2. Tia takes nothing, because striking out the figure revoked the gift.
3. Tia may take either figure, as the personal representatives decide.
4. Tia takes £5,000, because the alteration is not validly executed and the original words remain readable.
5. The whole will is revoked because it was altered after execution.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Section 21 of the Wills Act 1837 provides that an alteration made after execution is invalid unless it is executed like a will, which in practice means signed by the testator and witnesses, for example by initials in the margin. Unattested alterations are presumed to have been made after execution. Pritesh's initials alone do not satisfy s 21, so the alteration has no effect. Where the original words are still apparent, the will is read in its original form. Tia therefore takes £5,000. The testator's apparent intention cannot override the formalities.

Wills Act 1837, s 21

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Lapse and failure of gifts

Anita's will gives £20,000 to her friend Kofi and the residue to a charity. Kofi, who has two adult children, died last year. Anita has now died without changing her will. The will has no substitutional gift and no survivorship clause. Which statement best describes what happens to the £20,000?

1. It falls into residue and passes to the charity.
2. It passes to Kofi's estate under his will or intestacy.
3. It passes to Kofi's two children in equal shares.
4. It passes to Anita's next of kin under the intestacy rules.
5. It is held by the personal representatives, who choose who should receive it.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. A gift in a will lapses if the beneficiary dies before the testator and no contrary intention appears. The statutory exception in s 33 of the Wills Act 1837 saves gifts only where the beneficiary was a child or remoter descendant of the testator who leaves issue. Kofi was a friend, so s 33 does not apply. A lapsed pecuniary legacy falls into residue, so the charity takes it. The tempting answer that Kofi's children inherit is wrong, because only the testator's own descendants are protected by s 33.

Wills Act 1837, s 33

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Intestacy

Ayo died intestate, domiciled in England. He left a wife, Bola, and two adult children. His net estate, after debts and expenses and excluding personal chattels, is £500,000. Assume the statutory legacy for a surviving spouse is £322,000. Bola survived him by more than 28 days. What does Bola receive from the £500,000 under the intestacy rules?

1. The whole £500,000, because a spouse always takes everything.
2. £322,000 only, with the rest going to the children.
3. £322,000 plus half of the remaining £178,000, which is £411,000.
4. One half of the estate, which is £250,000, and no statutory legacy.
5. £322,000 plus one third of the remaining £178,000.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Where an intestate leaves a spouse and issue, section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (as amended by the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014) gives the spouse the personal chattels, the statutory legacy and half of the remaining residue absolutely. Here the remainder is £500,000 less £322,000, which is £178,000, and half is £89,000. Bola takes £322,000 plus £89,000, which is £411,000. The other half of the residue, £89,000, is held on the statutory trusts for the children. The whole estate passes to a spouse only if there are no issue.

Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46; Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014, s 1

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Grants of representation

Hugh Barnes died intestate, domiciled in England. He is survived by his wife of 30 years, Sue, and an adult daughter, Jade. Both are keen to deal with the estate and Jade has already approached a solicitor. Hugh's brother has also offered to help. Who has priority to take a grant of letters of administration?

1. Jade, because she will take a larger share of the estate than anyone else.
2. Whoever of Sue and Jade first lodges an application at the probate registry.
3. Sue and Jade jointly, because they have equal priority as the nearest relatives.
4. Sue, as the surviving spouse, and Jade may apply only if Sue renounces or is cleared off.
5. Hugh's brother, because the court prefers a relative who is not a beneficiary.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 sets the order of priority for a grant on intestacy. The surviving spouse comes first, then the children and issue, then parents, and so on. Sue therefore has priority over Jade. Jade can apply only if Sue renounces her right or is cleared off, for example by being cited. Under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 114, a grant may be made to no more than four people. The brother is much lower down the order and has no priority.

Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, r 22; Senior Courts Act 1981, s 114

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Personal representatives: duties and protections

Eve and Tom, the executors of Gina's will, obtained probate. Immediately after the grant they paid all the legacies and the residue. They did not place any statutory notices. Six months later, a supplier produced an unpaid invoice for £25,000 for work done for Gina before she died. The estate is now spent. Which statement best describes the executors' position?

1. They are not liable because they did not know about the invoice.
2. They are liable only if they acted dishonestly.
3. They are personally liable to the creditor up to the value of the assets they distributed, because they gave no statutory notice.
4. The supplier can claim only from the beneficiaries and not from the executors.
5. They are protected because the grant of probate is conclusive that all debts have been paid.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Personal representatives must pay the deceased's debts before distributing to beneficiaries. They can protect themselves from claims of which they have no notice by giving statutory notice under s 27 of the Trustee Act 1925. That means advertising in the London Gazette and a local newspaper and allowing at least two months for claims, and making proper searches. Without the notices, ignorance of the debt is no defence, so Eve and Tom are personally liable to the extent of the assets distributed. The supplier may also pursue beneficiaries, but that does not remove the executors' liability.

Trustee Act 1925, s 27; Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 25

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Professional conduct in wills

A client, Mrs Carter, asks your firm to draft her will. The firm's standard precedent appoints the firm's partners as executors and includes a clause allowing them to charge professional fees for administering the estate. Mrs Carter has not asked for this. She has two adult children who could act as executors. What must you do to comply with the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors?

1. Include the clause without comment, because it is part of the firm's standard precedent.
2. Draft the will with the children as executors and say nothing about the firm's own role.
3. Appoint the firm only if Mrs Carter says first that she wants a professional executor.
4. Explain that the clause lets the firm charge, that the firm benefits, and that she may appoint her children, and record her informed decision.
5. Include the clause but reduce the firm's fees to avoid any conflict.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. A charging clause allows a professional executor to charge for administering the estate (Trustee Act 2000, s 28), so the clause is a financial benefit to the firm. Paragraph 8.6 of the Code requires you to give clients information in a way they understand so they can make informed decisions about the services they need and the options available. Paragraph 1.2 prohibits taking unfair advantage of clients. Mrs Carter should be told what the clause means, the likely cost, and that her children are an alternative, and her decision should be recorded. Silence on the firm's interest risks a breach of these rules and a later challenge.

Trustee Act 2000, s 28; SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 8.6; SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 1.2

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Inheritance tax on death

Mrs Dunn, a widow, died this year. Her estate is worth £700,000 and includes her home, worth £400,000, which she left to her daughter. The rest passes to a friend. She made no lifetime gifts. Assume the nil rate band is £325,000, the residence nil rate band is £175,000 and is fully available, and the rate of inheritance tax on death is 40%. What is the inheritance tax payable on her estate?

1. £280,000
2. £80,000
3. £150,000
4. £210,000
5. £40,000

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Tax on death is charged at 40% on the value of the estate above the available nil rate bands. The residence nil rate band applies because Mrs Dunn left her home to a direct descendant, her daughter, and the figures given make it fully available. The total bands are £325,000 plus £175,000, which is £500,000. The chargeable estate is £700,000 less £500,000, which is £200,000. Tax is 40% of £200,000, which is £80,000. Using only the nil rate band would give £150,000, which ignores the residence band.

Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 7; Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 8D

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Lifetime gifts and inheritance tax

Colm gave his son £400,000 in cash as an outright gift. It was Colm's only lifetime gift and no exemptions apply to it. Colm died four years and six months later. Assume the nil rate band is £325,000 and the death rate of tax is 40%. Taper relief reduces the tax by 20% for death three to four years after the gift, 40% for four to five years, 60% for five to six years and 80% for six to seven years. How much inheritance tax is payable on the gift?

1. £160,000
2. £30,000
3. £12,000
4. £24,000
5. £18,000

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. An outright gift to an individual is a potentially exempt transfer. It becomes chargeable because Colm died within seven years. The gift of £400,000 exceeds the £325,000 nil rate band by £75,000. Tax at 40% of £75,000 is £30,000. Death between four and five years after the gift gives a 40% reduction, so the tax payable is 60% of £30,000, which is £18,000. Taper relief reduces the tax, not the value of the gift, and applies only because tax is payable after the nil rate band.

Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 3A; Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s 7(4)

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Edith, aged 68, was married to Walter for 35 years. Walter died and left his whole estate of £600,000 to his brother. Edith has her own small pension and is worried about her future. Her solicitor says she may be able to claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Which statement best describes the standard of provision for Edith's claim?

1. She may claim only what is needed for her maintenance.
2. She may claim one half of the estate as of right.
3. She may claim only an amount equal to the intestacy share.
4. She may claim only if she can show that she was financially dependent on Walter.
5. She may claim such provision as is reasonable in all the circumstances, whether or not for maintenance.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Under s 1(2)(a) of the 1975 Act, a surviving spouse or civil partner can claim reasonable financial provision, which is such provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to receive, whether or not it is required for maintenance. Section 3(2) directs the court to consider what she might have received on divorce, as a guide but not a limit. All other applicants, such as children and cohabitees, are limited to provision for maintenance under s 1(2)(b). Edith need not prove dependency, and she has no automatic share.

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s 1(1)(a) and s 1(2)(a); Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s 3(2)

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Mutual wills

Henry and Julia, a married couple, made wills on the same day leaving everything to the survivor and then to their children, and they agreed that neither would change the plan after the first death. Henry died. Julia inherited the estate and made a new will leaving it all to her new partner, Colin. Julia has now died. Which statement best describes the position of the children?

1. The children have no claim because Julia was free to revoke her will at any time.
2. The children can bring a claim only under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
3. The new will is invalid because the agreement removed Julia's power to make a will.
4. The children can enforce the agreement only if both wills contained express words stating that they were mutual.
5. The children may be able to enforce the agreement because Colin could hold the property on constructive trust for them.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Mutual wills arise where spouses agree not to revoke their wills and to leave their property in a given way. After the first death, the survivor can still make a new will, and that will is valid, but equity binds the property by constructive trust to give effect to the agreement. The trust arises at the first death. The children may therefore be able to enforce it against Colin. The agreement must be proved by clear evidence. Express words are not strictly required.

Re Dale [1994] Ch 31; Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939

Report a problem with this question

Wills and the Administration of Estates · Capital gains tax on death

Rosa died in January 2026. At death, she owned a rental flat worth £400,000, which was the probate value. In May 2026 the personal representatives sold the flat for £420,000. Assume that the capital gains tax rate for personal representatives is 24% and that their annual exempt amount of £3,000 is available in the tax year of sale. There are no allowable costs. How much capital gains tax is payable on the sale?

1. £4,800, because the gain is £20,000 and the annual exempt amount cannot be used by personal representatives.
2. £4,080, because the gain is measured from the probate value and the annual exempt amount can be set off.
3. £100,800, because the gain is measured from the date Rosa bought the flat.
4. £0, because there is no gain on death and the flat was sold within a year.
5. £9,600, because the gain is £40,000 and the annual exempt amount is not available.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. On death there is no disposal for capital gains tax purposes, so no gain arises at death. Personal representatives acquire the assets at their market value at death, which is the probate value. A later sale is measured against that value, so the gain is £20,000. Personal representatives have an annual exempt amount in the tax year of death and the next two tax years. Chargeable gain is £17,000 and tax at 24% is £4,080. Rosa's original cost does not matter.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, s 62; Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, s 3

Report a problem with this question