Contract law worksheet with answers

A vague sales claim such as "the best coffee in the world" is usually treated as:

1. AA mere puff with no legal effect
2. BA condition of the contract
3. CA fraudulent misrepresentation
4. DAn implied warranty of quality

Minors (under 18) entering contracts are generally:

1. ANever able to make any contract
2. BBound in exactly the same way as adults, unless their parents object in writing
3. CLiable only if their parents sign too
4. DProtected, so many of their contracts are not enforceable against them

Which equitable remedy corrects a written contract so it records what the parties actually agreed?

1. ARectification
2. BQuantum meruit
3. CRescission
4. DSpecific performance

A hotel guest sees an exclusion notice in her room only after booking and paying at reception. Under Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel, the notice is:

1. ANot part of the contract, because it came after formation
2. BPart of the contract, because she stayed in the room
3. CBinding from the second night onwards
4. DPart of the contract, because hotels may exclude liability

In Hadley v Baxendale, damages are recoverable for losses that:

1. AWere caused in any factual sense by the breach, however unusual and unforeseeable they were
2. BWere caused by a third party
3. CThe claimant suffered only after the trial
4. DArise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties

A court will imply a term in fact into a commercial contract only if:

1. AIt would be reasonable and fair to both parties, even if it is not necessary
2. BIt would benefit the weaker party
3. CIt is usual in contracts in other industries
4. DIt is necessary for business efficacy or so obvious it goes without saying

Specific performance is usually ordered when:

1. ADamages would be an inadequate remedy, for example for unique goods or land
2. BThe claimant asks for it in any case
3. CThe contract involves personal services, such as employment or performance contracts
4. DThe defendant has no money

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:

1. AVoid for common mistake about the contracts
2. BVoidable for the directors' misrepresentation by failing to disclose their misconduct
3. CValid, because the mistake about quality was not fundamental enough
4. DUnenforceable because severance needs a deed