Q. In the case of Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc, what was the court's finding on the existence of a contract?
-
A.
A contract existed based on past dealings
-
B.
A contract existed based on verbal agreement
-
C.
No contract existed due to lack of certainty
-
D.
A contract existed based on written terms
Solution
The court found that no contract existed due to lack of certainty in the terms of the agreement.
Correct Answer:
C
— No contract existed due to lack of certainty
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co, what was the key issue regarding revocation of an offer?
-
A.
Revocation must be communicated
-
B.
Revocation can be implied
-
C.
Revocation is effective when sent
-
D.
Revocation is not allowed
Solution
The key issue was that revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree to be effective.
Correct Answer:
A
— Revocation must be communicated
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, what was the main issue regarding the formation of the contract?
-
A.
Whether there was a valid offer
-
B.
Whether consideration was present
-
C.
Whether acceptance was communicated
-
D.
Whether the terms were clear
Solution
The main issue was whether there was a valid offer, as the court found that the advertisement constituted an offer to the world.
Correct Answer:
A
— Whether there was a valid offer
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation, what was the ruling regarding acceptance?
-
A.
Acceptance must be in writing
-
B.
Acceptance is effective when sent
-
C.
Acceptance is effective when received
-
D.
Acceptance can be implied
Solution
The ruling was that acceptance is effective when received, particularly in the context of instantaneous communication.
Correct Answer:
C
— Acceptance is effective when received
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Fisher v Bell, what was the court's ruling regarding the display of goods?
-
A.
It constituted an offer
-
B.
It constituted an invitation to treat
-
C.
It was a binding contract
-
D.
It was a unilateral offer
Solution
The court ruled that the display of goods in a shop window constituted an invitation to treat, not an offer.
Correct Answer:
B
— It constituted an invitation to treat
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Hadley v Baxendale, what principle was established regarding damages?
-
A.
Damages must be foreseeable
-
B.
Damages must be punitive
-
C.
Damages must be nominal
-
D.
Damages must be liquidated
Solution
The principle established was that damages must be foreseeable as a result of the breach.
Correct Answer:
A
— Damages must be foreseeable
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Hyde v. Wrench, what was the significance of the counter-offer?
-
A.
It created a new contract
-
B.
It rejected the original offer
-
C.
It was a mere inquiry
-
D.
It was accepted by the original offeror
Solution
The counter-offer rejected the original offer, meaning that the original offer could no longer be accepted.
Correct Answer:
B
— It rejected the original offer
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Poussard v Spiers and Pond, what was the outcome regarding breach of contract?
-
A.
The breach was minor
-
B.
The breach was anticipatory
-
C.
The breach was fundamental
-
D.
There was no breach
Solution
The breach was fundamental as the performer failed to show up for the opening night, which was essential to the contract.
Correct Answer:
C
— The breach was fundamental
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Routledge v Grant, what was the significance of the time frame in the offer?
-
A.
Offers can be revoked at any time
-
B.
Offers are binding once made
-
C.
Offers must remain open for a specified time
-
D.
Offers can only be revoked after acceptance
Solution
The significance was that offers can be revoked at any time before acceptance, even if a time frame is mentioned.
Correct Answer:
A
— Offers can be revoked at any time
Learn More →
Q. In the case of Thomas v Thomas, what was the court's view on consideration?
-
A.
Consideration must be monetary
-
B.
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
-
C.
Consideration must be adequate
-
D.
Consideration is not necessary
Solution
The court held that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, meaning it must have some value.
Correct Answer:
B
— Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Learn More →
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 (1 Pages)
