1.Easy
A unilateral contract is one in which:
- AOne party promises something in return for the other performing an act
- BOnly one party signs the written document, so only that party is bound by it
- COnly one party is allowed to terminate it
- DThe terms are imposed by statute on one party
2.Easy
Under the contra proferentem rule, an ambiguous term is interpreted:
- AIn favour of the party who drafted it
- BAs if it were not part of the contract
- CAgainst the party who relies on it
- DIn favour of the stronger party
3.Easy
An offer with no stated time limit lapses:
- AAfter exactly seven days
- BAt midnight on the day it is made
- CAfter a reasonable time
- DNever, unless revoked
4.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:
- ASuspended until more licences were issued
- BVoid, because licences were a condition precedent
- CFrustrated by the government licensing decision
- DNot frustrated, because the problem was self-induced
5.Medium
A doctor selling his practice truthfully states its income, but the income falls sharply before the contract is signed and he says nothing. This is:
- ANot a misrepresentation, because the statement was true when it was made
- BA misrepresentation, because he should have corrected the statement
- CA mere opinion about future income
- DA breach of an implied condition of quality
6.Medium
A holiday company provides a holiday far below the promised standard. Can the customer recover damages for disappointment?
- AOnly if the customer suffered a physical injury
- BNo, because mental distress is never recoverable in contract
- CYes, because the contract's purpose was to provide enjoyment
- DOnly if the company acted dishonestly
7.Hard
A client repudiates an advertising contract the same day it is made. The agency ignores this, displays the adverts for the full period and sues for the price. In White and Carter v McGregor:
- AThe agency could only claim damages after mitigating
- BThe agency had to obtain a court order first
- CThe agency could recover the full price
- DThe agency could recover nothing
8.Hard
Two parties agree to continue negotiating for the sale of a business, with no fixed period. In Walford v Miles, the House of Lords held that a bare agreement to negotiate in good faith is:
- AUnenforceable, because it lacks certainty
- BEnforceable only if made in writing
- CEnforceable, as an implied duty of good faith
- DEnforceable as a lock-out agreement
Answer key
- 1. A · One party promises something in return for the other performing an act
- 2. C · Against the party who relies on it
- 3. C · After a reasonable time
- 4. D · Not frustrated, because the problem was self-induced
- 5. B · A misrepresentation, because he should have corrected the statement
- 6. C · Yes, because the contract's purpose was to provide enjoyment
- 7. C · The agency could recover the full price
- 8. A · Unenforceable, because it lacks certainty
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.