1.Easy
For commercial agreements, English courts presume that the parties:
- ADo not intend to create legal relations
- BIntend to create legal relations
- CIntend only a moral obligation
- DIntend the agreement to be a gift
2.Easy
What is a breach of contract?
- ANegotiating a better price
- BRefusing to sign a contract
- CWithdrawing an offer before it is accepted, after promising to keep it open
- DFailing to perform a contractual obligation without a lawful excuse
3.Easy
Which equitable remedy corrects a written contract so it records what the parties actually agreed?
- ASpecific performance
- BRectification
- CRescission
- DQuantum meruit
4.Medium
A former wife sues for maintenance her ex-husband promised, relying only on promissory estoppel because she gave no consideration. In Combe v Combe:
- AShe failed, because family agreements are never legally binding on either party
- BShe succeeded, because she relied on the promise
- CShe failed, because promissory estoppel is a shield, not a sword
- DShe succeeded, because the promise was made in writing
5.Medium
In English law, the "postal rule" means an acceptance sent by post takes effect:
- AWhen the letter arrives
- BWhen the offeror replies
- CWhen the letter is read
- DWhen the letter is posted
6.Medium
A fishing company receives fewer licences than it needs and chooses to assign them to its other ships, not the chartered one. In Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers the charter was:
- AVoid, because licences were a condition precedent
- BNot frustrated, because the problem was self-induced
- CSuspended until more licences were issued
- DFrustrated by the government licensing decision
7.Hard
An employer pays large severance sums to two directors, later discovering it could have dismissed them for nothing because of their earlier misconduct. In Bell v Lever Bros, the agreements were:
- AVoid for common mistake about the contracts
- BVoidable for the directors' misrepresentation by failing to disclose their misconduct
- CValid, because the mistake about quality was not fundamental enough
- DUnenforceable because severance needs a deed
8.Hard
Which statement about the parol evidence rule is correct?
- AWritten contracts can never be interpreted
- BCourts must accept any later oral statement as overriding the express written terms of the contract
- CEvidence outside a written contract is generally not admitted to add to or vary its terms
- DOral contracts are always invalid
Answer key
- 1. B · Intend to create legal relations
- 2. D · Failing to perform a contractual obligation without a lawful excuse
- 3. B · Rectification
- 4. C · She failed, because promissory estoppel is a shield, not a sword
- 5. D · When the letter is posted
- 6. B · Not frustrated, because the problem was self-induced
- 7. C · Valid, because the mistake about quality was not fundamental enough
- 8. C · Evidence outside a written contract is generally not admitted to add to or vary its terms
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.