1.Easy
According to Derry v Peek, a misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker:
- AKnew it was false, did not believe it, or was reckless whether it was true
- BMade a profit from the contract that followed
- CMade it carelessly and without checking the facts, though honestly believing it
- DMade it in a written document
2.Easy
Anticipatory breach occurs when:
- AA party breaches a term that has not yet been agreed
- BAn expert predicts, before performance is due, that a party will probably breach
- CA party shows, before performance is due, that it will not perform
- DA party performs earlier than the agreed date
3.Easy
A vague sales claim such as "the best coffee in the world" is usually treated as:
- AA mere puff with no legal effect
- BAn implied warranty of quality
- CA fraudulent misrepresentation
- DA condition of the contract
4.Medium
Under UCTA 1977, a business-to-business clause excluding liability for property damage caused by negligence is valid:
- AAlways, because businesses can bargain freely
- BNever, in any circumstances
- COnly if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness
- DOnly if signed by a company director
5.Medium
In Hadley v Baxendale, damages are recoverable for losses that:
- AThe claimant suffered only after the trial
- BWere caused by a third party
- CWere caused in any factual sense by the breach, however unusual and unforeseeable they were
- DArise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties
6.Medium
Promissory estoppel can prevent a party from:
- AMaking any new promises
- BSuing for any breach at all, including breaches entirely unrelated to the promise that it made
- CEntering into future contracts
- DGoing back on a promise not to enforce strict legal rights, when the other relied on it
7.Hard
Liquidated damages clauses are enforceable in English law when:
- AThey are agreed orally only
- BThey are set as high as possible, so that they deter either party from breaching
- CThey protect a legitimate interest and are not out of all proportion to it
- DOnly the party in breach benefits from them
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:
- AEnforceable, as an implied duty of good faith
- BEnforceable only if made in writing
- CEnforceable as a lock-out agreement
- DUnenforceable, because it lacks certainty
Answer key
- 1. A · Knew it was false, did not believe it, or was reckless whether it was true
- 2. C · A party shows, before performance is due, that it will not perform
- 3. A · A mere puff with no legal effect
- 4. C · Only if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness
- 5. D · Arise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties
- 6. D · Going back on a promise not to enforce strict legal rights, when the other relied on it
- 7. C · They protect a legitimate interest and are not out of all proportion to it
- 8. D · Unenforceable, because it lacks certainty
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.