Contract law worksheet with answers

A claim on a "quantum meruit" is a claim for:

1. AAn order stopping the other party from acting
2. BPunitive damages for deliberate breach
3. CA reasonable sum for work done or services provided
4. DThe return of land transferred under the contract

Which elements are generally needed to form a contract?

1. AA payment made in advance
2. BA written document signed by both parties and certified by a notary
3. CAn offer and an acceptance, with the intention to be legally bound
4. DA witness for each party

In English law, agreements between spouses living together in harmony are presumed to be:

1. ABinding only for one year
2. BAlways legally binding
3. CBinding only if witnessed
4. DNot intended to be legally binding

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 succeeded, because the promise was made in writing
4. DShe failed, because promissory estoppel is a shield, not a sword

An actor withdraws from a TV film and the company cannot prove what profit the film would have made. It may claim:

1. APunitive damages to deter the actor
2. BIts estimated profits from the film, even if they are purely speculative
3. COnly nominal damages of a small sum
4. DIts wasted expenditure, including costs incurred before the contract

A misrepresentation is:

1. AA promise about future behaviour that is not kept, even if honestly made
2. BSilence about any fact at all
3. CA false statement of fact that induces someone to enter a contract
4. DAn opinion that turns out to be wrong

In a face-to-face sale, a rogue falsely claims to be a famous actor, pays with a worthless cheque, and sells the car on to an innocent buyer. Under Lewis v Averay, the first contract was:

1. AVoid, because cheques cannot pay for cars
2. BVoid for mistake, so the innocent buyer got no title
3. CVoidable for fraud, so the innocent buyer got good title
4. DValid, and the seller could only sue the rogue in tort

A van is bought "on hire-purchase terms" with no further detail, and such terms varied widely in practice. In Scammell v Ouston, the House of Lords held:

1. AThere was a contract at a reasonable price
2. BThe seller's usual terms applied
3. CThere was a contract on the standard hire-purchase terms of the market
4. DThere was no contract, because the terms were too vague