Contract law worksheet with answers

Under the contra proferentem rule, an ambiguous term is interpreted:

1. AIn favour of the stronger party
2. BAs if it were not part of the contract
3. CIn favour of the party who drafted it
4. DAgainst the party who relies on it

In English law, revocation of an offer takes effect:

1. AWhen it is actually communicated to the offeree
2. BAs soon as the offeror privately decides
3. COnly after a reasonable notice period
4. DWhen the letter of revocation is posted

In English law, "past consideration" is generally:

1. ANot good consideration
2. BRequired for every contract
3. CGood consideration only between family members
4. DGood consideration if it was valuable

A sailor is to be paid only on completing a voyage, but dies part of the way. Under the strict rule applied in Cutter v Powell:

1. AThe full wages were payable
2. BA proportion of the wages was payable
3. CNothing was recoverable for the part performed
4. DThe ship owner had to pay compensation

Under UCTA 1977, a business-to-business clause excluding liability for property damage caused by negligence is valid:

1. AAlways, because businesses can bargain freely
2. BOnly if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness
3. CNever, in any circumstances
4. DOnly if signed by a company director

A customer signs a contract containing an exclusion clause without reading it. Absent fraud or misrepresentation, the clause is generally:

1. AIncorporated, because a signature binds the signer
2. BIncorporated only if it was explained orally
3. CVoid for unilateral mistake
4. DNot incorporated, because it was not read

A husband who has left his wife signs a note promising to transfer the house to her if she pays off the mortgage. She does. In Merritt v Merritt, the promise was:

1. AEnforceable, because separated spouses are presumed to intend legal relations
2. BEnforceable only because it was made by deed
3. CUnenforceable, because she gave no consideration
4. DUnenforceable, because it was a domestic arrangement between husband and wife

A seller mistakenly offers hare skins at a price per pound instead of per piece. The buyer knew that prices were always quoted per piece. In Hartog v Colin and Shields:

1. AThere was no contract, as the buyer knew of the mistake
2. BThe court rewrote the price to per piece
3. CThe contract was voidable at the buyer's option
4. DThere was a binding contract at the stated price