Contract law worksheet with answers

Under the contra proferentem rule, an ambiguous term is interpreted:

1. AIn favour of the party who drafted it
2. BAgainst the party who relies on it
3. CAs if it were not part of the contract
4. DIn favour of the stronger party

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

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

According to Derry v Peek, a misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker:

1. AKnew it was false, did not believe it, or was reckless whether it was true
2. BMade a profit from the contract that followed
3. CMade it in a written document
4. DMade it carelessly and without checking the facts, though honestly believing it

A creditor agrees to take £600 in full settlement of a £1,000 debt that is due, then sues for the other £400. Under Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer, the creditor:

1. ACan recover only if the agreement was oral
2. BCannot recover anything more
3. CMust give back the £600 first
4. DCan usually recover the £400

Promissory estoppel can prevent a party from:

1. AEntering into future contracts
2. BGoing back on a promise not to enforce strict legal rights, when the other relied on it
3. CSuing for any breach at all, including breaches entirely unrelated to the promise that it made
4. DMaking any new promises

At an auction in England, the contract of sale is completed when:

1. AThe auctioneer brings down the hammer
2. BThe bidder makes the highest bid
3. CThe buyer collects the goods
4. DThe auctioneer puts the item up for sale

A council invites tenders by a deadline. A club submits on time, but the council wrongly treats it as late and ignores it. In Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC, the Court of Appeal held:

1. AThe council was obliged to accept the club's tender
2. BThe council breached an implied contract to consider conforming tenders
3. CThere was no obligation of any kind, as an invitation to tender is only an invitation to treat
4. DThe club could only claim in tort for negligence

A pays B money to bet on shares using insider information, which is illegal. The bet never happens and A wants the money back. In Patel v Mirza, the Supreme Court held:

1. AA could recover the money, applying a policy-based approach to illegality
2. BA could recover only half the money
3. CA could not recover, because no claim can be founded on an illegal agreement
4. DThe money passed to the state as illegal proceeds