Contract law worksheet with answers

An offer with no stated time limit lapses:

1. AAt midnight on the day it is made
2. BAfter a reasonable time
3. CAfter exactly seven days
4. DNever, unless revoked

Which statement about silence as acceptance is correct in general?

1. ASilence always counts as acceptance
2. BSilence usually does not count as acceptance
3. CSilence counts as acceptance after 24 hours
4. DSilence counts as acceptance if the offeror says so

In English law, a promise made in a deed is enforceable even without:

1. ADelivery of the deed
2. BA signature
3. CWriting
4. DConsideration

Under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, money paid before a frustrating event is generally:

1. APaid into court for distribution
2. BRecoverable, though the court may let the payee keep some for expenses
3. CPayable twice, as a penalty
4. DLost, because the loss must lie where it falls once the contract is frustrated

A seller says the farms are "fully let" but does not mention that the tenants have given notice to leave. This is:

1. AA misrepresentation by half-truth
2. BMere silence, which is never actionable
3. CA statement of opinion only
4. DA mere puff with no legal effect

A former wife sues for maintenance her ex-husband promised, relying only on promissory estoppel because she gave no consideration. In Combe v Combe:

1. AShe succeeded, because she relied on the promise
2. BShe failed, because family agreements are never legally binding on either party
3. CShe failed, because promissory estoppel is a shield, not a sword
4. DShe succeeded, because the promise was made in writing

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

A seller agreed to ship goods from Sudan to Hamburg. The Suez Canal was closed, so the ship had to go round the Cape of Good Hope, a much longer route. In Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl:

1. AThe contract was not frustrated, as the longer route was not fundamentally different
2. BThe contract was void from the start
3. CThe buyer had to pay the extra freight costs
4. DThe contract was frustrated, as shipping via the usual Suez route had become impossible