Contract law worksheet with answers

Which English statute allows a third party to enforce a contract term in some cases?

1. AContracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
2. BUnfair Contract Terms Act 1977
3. CLaw Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
4. DMisrepresentation Act 1967

Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, a business cannot exclude or restrict liability for:

1. ADeath or personal injury caused by negligence
2. BLoss of profit caused by a supplier
3. CLate delivery of goods in a business sale
4. DAny damage to the other party's property

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

1. AA signature
2. BDelivery of the deed
3. CConsideration
4. DWriting

An acceptance is sent by telex and arrives in the offeror's office during working hours. Under Entores v Miles Far East, acceptance takes effect:

1. AWhen the offeror reads it a week later
2. BWhen it is sent by the offeree
3. CWhen it is confirmed by post
4. DWhen it is received by the offeror

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

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

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. ABinding from the second night onwards
2. BPart of the contract, because she stayed in the room
3. CPart of the contract, because hotels may exclude liability
4. DNot part of the contract, because it came after formation

In the Dutch Civil Code (BW), an offer that states a time limit for acceptance is:

1. AAutomatically accepted at the end of the period
2. BRevocable at any moment before acceptance
3. CIrrevocable during that period
4. DInvalid without notarial approval

A contract states it can be varied only in signed writing. The parties later agree an oral variation. In MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising, the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe oral variation was ineffective, because the clause was binding
2. BThe variation was effective as it had consideration
3. CThe oral variation was effective, because parties can always vary orally
4. DThe clause was void as against public policy