Related Topics
Take Another Quiz

ACCA F4 English Law

150 Questions
ACCA Quizzes & Trivia

English Case Law

Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    A beneficiary may sue a trustee.
    • A. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • B. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • C. 

      Keech v Sandford

    • D. 

      Evans v Cross

  • 2. 
    A claim for damages which is commenced outside a statutory limitation period is barred under the Limitation Act 1980; this is 6 years from the date the breach could have been first discovered.
    • A. 

      Garrod v Scott

    • B. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • C. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • D. 

      Lynn v Bamber

  • 3. 
    A counter offer can terminates an offer.
    • A. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • B. 

      Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

    • C. 

      Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    • D. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

  • 4. 
    A manufacturer of goods may be sued by ultimate customers.
    • A. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • B. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • C. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • D. 

      Donaghue v Stevenson

  • 5. 
    A person with special knowledge or skills, or claiming to have them, must excersice them, the required standard is that of a reasonable man of equivalent position.
    • A. 

      Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • B. 

      Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & Others

    • C. 

      Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • D. 

      Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

  • 6. 
    A plc must hold AGM every calender year.
    • A. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • B. 

      Gibson v Barton

    • C. 

      Avery v Bowden

    • D. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

  • 7. 
    A request for information is not a counter offer. 
    • A. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • B. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • C. 

      Clarke v Dunraven

    • D. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

  • 8. 
    A response to request for information is not an offer.   
    • A. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • B. 

      Harvey v Facey

    • C. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • D. 

      Williams v Carwardine

  • 9. 
    A unilateral contract is one where one party promises something in return for some action on the part of another party. Name 2 cases for unilateral contract.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

    • C. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • D. 

      Errington v Errington

  • 10. 
    Acceptance can be communicated by reliable 3rd party.
    • A. 

      Powell v Lee

    • B. 

      Merritt v Merritt

    • C. 

      Evans v Cross

    • D. 

      Gilford Motor Company v Horne

  • 11. 
    Acceptance cannot vary the original offer; that would be a counter offer.
    • A. 

      R v Clark

    • B. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

    • C. 

      Powell v Lee

    • D. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

  • 12. 
    Acceptance may be by conduct, however, once the person has started the act of acceptance then the offeror cannot revoke.
    • A. 

      Combe v Combe

    • B. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • C. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • D. 

      Errington v Errington

  • 13. 
    Acceptance may be by conduct.
    • A. 

      Errington v Errington

    • B. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

    • C. 

      Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries

    • D. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

  • 14. 
    Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror, but offeror may waive the right of communication.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • C. 

      Re McArdle

    • D. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

  • 15. 
    Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time.
    • A. 

      Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

    • B. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

    • C. 

      Jubilee Cotton Mills v Lewes

    • D. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

  • 16. 
    Adverts are normally invitations.
    • A. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • B. 

      Daniel v Daniel

    • C. 

      Bushel v Faith

    • D. 

      Patridge v Crittendon

  • 17. 
    Alteration allowing compulsory purchase of minority share will normally be disallowed.
    • A. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

    • B. 

      Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel

    • C. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • D. 

      Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas

  • 18. 
    Alteration of articles allow explusion of competing members.
    • A. 

      Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese

    • B. 

      Keech v Sandford

    • C. 

      Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers

    • D. 

      Re New British Iron Company

  • 19. 
    Alteration of articles allow explusion of defrauding directors.
    • A. 

      Lamb v Camden

    • B. 

      Lynn v Bamber

    • C. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

    • D. 

      Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers

  • 20. 
    Alteration of articles does not relieve the company of liability for commitments incurred before the change.
    • A. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

    • B. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

    • C. 

      Ford v Armstrong

    • D. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

  • 21. 
    An advert offering reward is an offer, not an invitation.   
    • A. 

      R v Clark

    • B. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • C. 

      Williams V Carwardine

    • D. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

  • 22. 
    Another example of commercial argreements with exclusion clause in it.
    • A. 

      Appleson v Littlewoods

    • B. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • C. 

      Patridge v Crittenden

    • D. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

  • 23. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party choose to wait and hope the other party will change their minds, but may lose their right to sue.
    • A. 

      Rose & Frank v Crompton

    • B. 

      Stewart v Casey

    • C. 

      Avery v Bowden

    • D. 

      Hillas v Arcos

  • 24. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party go ahead with their obligations and then sue.
    • A. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • B. 

      Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway

    • C. 

      White v Bluett

    • D. 

      White and Carter Councils v MacGregor

  • 25. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party may sue immediately.
    • A. 

      Welby v Drake

    • B. 

      Hochester v De La Tour

    • C. 

      Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

    • D. 

      Combe v Combe

  • 26. 
    Articles bind members to the company.   
    • A. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • B. 

      Clarke v Dunraven

    • C. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • D. 

      Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co

  • 27. 
    Articles bind members to the members.   
    • A. 

      Andrews v Singer

    • B. 

      Hutton v Warren

    • C. 

      Bettini v Gye

    • D. 

      Clarke v Dunraven

  • 28. 
    Articles bind the company to the members.
    • A. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • B. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • C. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • D. 

      Evert v Williams

  • 29. 
    Articles can only alter if it is for the benefit of the company as a whole which involves individual hypothetical member of the future.
    • A. 

      Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas

    • B. 

      Re Cimex

    • C. 

      Re Tunbridge

    • D. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

  • 30. 
    Articles do not create a contract between the company and third parties.     
    • A. 

      Caparo v Dickman

    • B. 

      Lynn v Bamber

    • C. 

      Daniels v Daniels

    • D. 

      Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co

  • 31. 
    Articles may be used as evidence of the terms of a contract created independently of it. For ei. an employment or service contract might be created between the company and an employee or officer on terms that incorporate the relevant provisions of the article.
    • A. 

      Re McArdle

    • B. 

      Re New British Iron Company

    • C. 

      Re The Heron 11

    • D. 

      The Mikalis Angelos

  • 32. 
    Battery is trespass against the person by bringing intentionally a material object into contact with another person; it doesnot necessarily involve violence.
    • A. 

      Nash v Sheen

    • B. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Central London Trust Property v High Trees House

  • 33. 
    Breach of care is failure to achieve the required standard of care, the court will apply this principle that lack of skill is counted as faults.
    • A. 

      Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel

    • B. 

      Nettleship v Weston

    • C. 

      Lamb v Camden

    • D. 

      Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers

  • 34. 
    Class rights may be conferred upon particular members or group of members through the articles.
    • A. 

      Collins v Godefroy

    • B. 

      Hutton v Warren

    • C. 

      Cumbrian Newspapers v Cumberland & Westmoreland Herald

    • D. 

      Express Newspapers v Silverstone

  • 35. 
    Commercial agreements for intention to create legal relations, may include an express exclusion clause, that is the contract is binding in honour only.
    • A. 

      Parker v Clark

    • B. 

      Re Cimex

    • C. 

      Jones v Vernon Pools

    • D. 

      Bettini v Gye

  • 36. 
    Company is a separate legal personification in its own right.
    • A. 

      Combe v Combe

    • B. 

      Merritt v Merritt

    • C. 

      Spellman v Spellman

    • D. 

      Saloman v Saloman

  • 37. 
    Company's name may be restricted by statute.
    • A. 

      ANZAC

    • B. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • C. 

      Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine

    • D. 

      Re New British Iron Company

  • 38. 
    Consideration given is over and above a contractual duty.
    • A. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

    • B. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      White v Bluett

  • 39. 
    Consideration given is over and above a legal duty.
    • A. 

      R v Clark

    • B. 

      Collins v Godefroy

    • C. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

    • D. 

      Glasbrook v Glamorgan

  • 40. 
    Consideration given is over and above a natural duty.
    • A. 

      Ward v Byham

    • B. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • C. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • D. 

      Thomas v Thomas

  • 41. 
    Consideration is defined in 2 cases in 2 different ways. Name the cases.
    • A. 

      Currie v Misa

    • B. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

    • C. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

    • D. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

  • 42. 
    Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a natural duty already owed.
    • A. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • B. 

      White v Bluett

    • C. 

      Ward v Byham

    • D. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

  • 43. 
    Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a contractual duty already owed ... .. dghgh...
    • A. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • B. 

      The Moorcock

    • C. 

      The Wagon Mound

    • D. 

      Williams v Roffey

  • 44. 
    Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a legal duty already owed. 
    • A. 

      Byne v Van Tienhoven

    • B. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • C. 

      Stewart v Casey

    • D. 

      Collins v Godefroy

  • 45. 
    Consideration must have some value.
    • A. 

      Chappell v Nestle

    • B. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • C. 

      Jarvis v Swan Tours

    • D. 

      Hoeing v Issac

  • 46. 
    Contractual terms which are judicially implied for busness efficacy.
    • A. 

      Currie v Misa

    • B. 

      The Moorcock

    • C. 

      Hutton v Warren

    • D. 

      Foakes v Beer

  • 47. 
    Contractual terms which are judicially implied for course of trade. 
    • A. 

      Andrews v Singer

    • B. 

      Express Newspapers v Silverstone

    • C. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • D. 

      Hillas v Arcos

  • 48. 
    Contractual terms which are judicially implied for trade custom. 
    • A. 

      Hillas v Arcos

    • B. 

      Hutton v Warren

    • C. 

      Rose & Frank v Crompton

    • D. 

      Chapletown v Barry

  • 49. 
    Court may imply an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum.
    • A. 

      Stewart v Casey

    • B. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • C. 

      Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    • D. 

      Merritt v Merritt

  • 50. 
    Court while measuring damages, may consider non-financial loss.
    • A. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • B. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

    • C. 

      The Moorcock

    • D. 

      Jarvis v Swan Tours

  • 51. 
    Court while measuring damages, may not consider non-financial loss.
    • A. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • B. 

      Alexander v Rolls Royce

    • C. 

      Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

    • D. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

  • 52. 
    Court while measuring damages, may not take account of speculative loss - Case I.
    • A. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

    • B. 

      Avery Bowden

    • C. 

      Hochestar v De La Tour

    • D. 

      White and Carter Councils v MacGregor

  • 53. 
    Court while measuring damages, may not take account of speculative loss - Case II.
    • A. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • B. 

      Anglia TV v Reed

    • C. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • D. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

  • 54. 
    Court while measuring damages, may take account of speculative loss.
    • A. 

      Re Tunbridge

    • B. 

      Ward v Byham

    • C. 

      Thompson v Robinson

    • D. 

      The Wagon Mound

  • 55. 
    Courts determine how much award is necessary to put the injuired party into the position they would have achieved if there had been no breach.
    • A. 

      Hillas v Arcos

    • B. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • C. 

      Donahue v Stevenson

    • D. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

  • 56. 
    Defences in negligence, is the act of the plaintiff causing additional injury - contributory negligence.
    • A. 

      Paris v Stepney

    • B. 

      Sayers v Harlow

    • C. 

      McKew v Holland

    • D. 

      Carslogie v Norway

  • 57. 
    Defences in negligence, is the act of the plaintiff causing additional injury - volenti non fit injuria.
    • A. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

    • B. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • C. 

      ICI v Shatwell

    • D. 

      Avery v Bowden

  • 58. 
    Every contract must be supported by consideration.
    • A. 

      Currie v Misa

    • B. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • C. 

      Hillas v Arcos

    • D. 

      R v Oll

  • 59. 
    Expess declaration of exclusion clause, in Intention to Create Legal Relations, must be exceptionally clear and unambiguous; otherwise the court will normally ignore it and treat the contract as enforceable.
    • A. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

    • B. 

      Edwards v Skywards

    • C. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • D. 

      Hedley Bryne v Heller

  • 60. 
    Floating charge is defined in which case?
    • A. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    • B. 

      Re McArdle

    • C. 

      R v Oll

    • D. 

      R v Clark

  • 61. 
    Goods in a supermarket are invitations.
    • A. 

      Powell v Lee

    • B. 

      Pharmaseutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist South Western

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Pender v Lushington

  • 62. 
    If a company tries to ignore the restrictions, ultra vires, members can object.
    • A. 

      Ashbury Railway v Riche

    • B. 

      Richely v Fould

    • C. 

      Mahon v Osborne

    • D. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

  • 63. 
    If it is a penalty court will not allow liquidated damages.
    • A. 

      Andrews v Singer

    • B. 

      Ford v Armstrong

    • C. 

      Evans v Cross

    • D. 

      Merritt v Merritt

  • 64. 
    If proposed alteration adversely affects only one member, it may still be valid.
    • A. 

      Richley v Fould

    • B. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • C. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

    • D. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

  • 65. 
    If the cost of repair far outweighs the loss suffered, couts may make an award based on loss of amenity.
    • A. 

      Richley v Fould

    • B. 

      Ford v Armstrong

    • C. 

      Foakes v Beer

    • D. 

      Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

  • 66. 
    If the preference was given, in creating a fixed charge, in favour of a director, the relevant period is extended to one year from the date of transaction.
    • A. 

      Re McArdle

    • B. 

      Harris v Nickerson

    • C. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • D. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

  • 67. 
    If the tests for neighbour principle are not satisfied, the claimant has no claim. Name the case for lack of proximity.
    • A. 

      Tower Cabinet Company Ltd v Ingram

    • B. 

      Bourhill v Young

    • C. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

    • D. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

  • 68. 
    In collateral contracts, an injured party can sue even though the other party is not a party to the contract.
    • A. 

      Harris v Nickerson

    • B. 

      Patridge v Crittenden

    • C. 

      Williams V Roffey

    • D. 

      Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

  • 69. 
    In employment law, it is necessary to distinguish between a contract of service and a contract for services, the court wil apply control test.
    • A. 

      Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • B. 

      Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • C. 

      Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

    • D. 

      Lamb v Camden

  • 70. 
    In employment law, it is necessary to distinguish between a contract of service and a contract for services, the court wil apply integration test.
    • A. 

      Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • B. 

      Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • C. 

      Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

    • D. 

      Avery v Bowden

  • 71. 
    In employment law, it is necessary to distinguish between a contract of service and a contract for services, the court wil apply economic reality test.
    • A. 

      Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • B. 

      Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • C. 

      Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

    • D. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

  • 72. 
    In Privity of Contract, a person who stood to benefit from a promise could not enforce it unless he had given consideration; even if the promisor had received consideration from elsewhere.
    • A. 

      Dunlop v Sefridges

    • B. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

    • C. 

      Jones v Vernon Pools

    • D. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

  • 73. 
    In Privity of Contract, where special relationship exsits, for example, an executor may sue to enforce a contract entered into by the deceased, name the case.
    • A. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • B. 

      Combe v Combe

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Daniels v Daniels

  • 74. 
    In which case a fixed charge was held by the court to be floating?
    • A. 

      R v Oll

    • B. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    • C. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolbombers

    • D. 

      Re Tunbridge

  • 75. 
    In which case a floating charge was held by the court to be fixed?
    • A. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    • B. 

      Re Tunbridge

    • C. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolbombers

    • D. 

      Re Cimex

  • 76. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, where husband and wife are living together. 
    • A. 

      Balfour v Balfour

    • B. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • C. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • D. 

      Daniels v Daniels

  • 77. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, where husband and wife are living apart - Case I.
    • A. 

      Balfour v Balfour

    • B. 

      Merritt v Merritt

    • C. 

      Spellman v Spellman

    • D. 

      Beswick v Beswick

  • 78. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, where husband and wife are living apart - Case II. 
    • A. 

      Spellman v Spellman

    • B. 

      Merritt v Merritt

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Daniels Daniels

  • 79. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, other than husband and wife - Case I. 
    • A. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • B. 

      Harris v Nickerson

    • C. 

      Balfour v Balfour

    • D. 

      Simpkin v Pays

  • 80. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, other than husband and wife - Case II. 
    • A. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • B. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • C. 

      Jones v Padavatton

    • D. 

      Gibson v Barton

  • 81. 
    Intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, other than husband and wife - Case III.  
    • A. 

      Parker v Clark

    • B. 

      R v Clark

    • C. 

      Clarke v Dunraven

    • D. 

      Re Tunbridge

  • 82. 
    Intention to create legal relations, commercial arrangements.
    • A. 

      Grainge v Gough

    • B. 

      Guthing v Lynn

    • C. 

      Rose & Frank v Crompton

    • D. 

      Hutton v Warren

  • 83. 
    It is possible to prevent alteration by weighted voting rights.
    • A. 

      Bushell v Faith

    • B. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • C. 

      Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

    • D. 

      Ashbury Railway v Riche

  • 84. 
    Liquidated damages is a genuine attempt to quantify potential loss.
    • A. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

    • B. 

      Planche v Colborn

    • C. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

    • D. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

  • 85. 
    Mail catelogues are invitations only.
    • A. 

      Grainger v Gough

    • B. 

      Williams V Carwardine

    • C. 

      R v Clark

    • D. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smake Ball Company

  • 86. 
    Members may lose their personal interest in the company's assets and affairs.
    • A. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

    • B. 

      Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Ltd

    • C. 

      Foss v Harbottle

    • D. 

      Adams v Cape Industries

  • 87. 
    Members may lose their personal interest in the company's assets and affairs and their wishes may be overruled by majority. Name the case that defines the principle of majority rule in the company.
    • A. 

      Foss v Harbottle

    • B. 

      Adams v Cape Industries

    • C. 

      Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Ltd

    • D. 

      Saloman v Saloman

  • 88. 
    Motivation in case of reward is irrelevant; knowledge of the existence of reward is enough.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • C. 

      R v Clark

    • D. 

      Mersey Docks v Coggins

  • 89. 
    Name 3 cases for remedies for breach in quantum meurit, for as much as it is worth.
    • A. 

      Planche v Colborn

    • B. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

    • C. 

      Interfoto v Stiletto

    • D. 

      Barnardy v Harding

  • 90. 
    Name a case, where a condition was treated as a innomiate.
    • A. 

      The Hansa Nord

    • B. 

      THe Wagon Mound

    • C. 

      Re The Heron 11

    • D. 

      The Moorcock

  • 91. 
    Name a case, where an innomiate term was treated as a condition.
    • A. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • B. 

      The Hansa Nord

    • C. 

      Poussard v Spiers & Pond

    • D. 

      Bettini v Gye

  • 92. 
    Name a case, where an innomiate term was treated as a warranty.
    • A. 

      Poussard v Spiers & Pond

    • B. 

      Bettini v Gye

    • C. 

      The Hansa Nord

    • D. 

      Lynn v Bamber

  • 93. 
    Negligence is breach of the duty: a greater degree of care is needed if risk of injury is high.
    • A. 

      Glasgow v Taylor

    • B. 

      Paris v Stepney

    • C. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • D. 

      Leigh v Simm

  • 94. 
    Notification of death for non-personal services does not terminate an offer.
    • A. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • B. 

      Bradbury v Morgan

    • C. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • D. 

      Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co

  • 95. 
    Novus actus interveniens: something new intervens and breaks the chain of causality in act where the injured party were unreasonable.
    • A. 

      Garrod v Scott

    • B. 

      Evans v Cross

    • C. 

      R v Clark

    • D. 

      McKew v Holland

  • 96. 
    Novus actus interveniens: something new intervens and breaks the chain of causality in act of a third party increased the damage.
    • A. 

      Lamb v Camden

    • B. 

      Grainger v Gough

    • C. 

      Bradbury v Morgan

    • D. 

      Dickinson v Dodds

  • 97. 
    Novus actus interveniens: something new intervens and breaks the chain of causality is an act of God.
    • A. 

      Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • B. 

      Ward v Byham

    • C. 

      Carslogie v Norway

    • D. 

      Collins v Godefroy

  • 98. 
    Offer can be made to the world at large; therefore, communication of acceptance may be waived.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Powell v Lee

    • C. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

    • D. 

      R v Clark

  • 99. 
    Offer must be certain.   
    • A. 

      Re McArdle

    • B. 

      Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

    • C. 

      Fielthouse v Bindley

    • D. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

  • 100. 
    Offer must be distinguished from statement of intent. 
    • A. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • B. 

      Currie v Misa

    • C. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

    • D. 

      Harris v Nickerson

  • 101. 
    Offer terminates in lapse of time.
    • A. 

      Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • B. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • C. 

      R v Oll

    • D. 

      The Moorcock

  • 102. 
    Partners are liable for acts within a partner's apparent authority.
    • A. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

    • B. 

      Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • C. 

      Scott v Garrod

    • D. 

      Mercantile Credit Company Ltd v Garrod

  • 103. 
    Partners are not liable for not knowingly held out.
    • A. 

      Tower Cabinet Company Ltd v Ingram

    • B. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • C. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

    • D. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

  • 104. 
    Partners may agree amongst themselves how their firm is to operate, so long as their arrangement is legal.
    • A. 

      Evert v Williams

    • B. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • C. 

      Williams v Roffey Bros & Nelson

    • D. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

  • 105. 
    Past consideration is no consideration.
    • A. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • B. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • C. 

      White v Bluett

    • D. 

      Re McArdle

  • 106. 
    Performace of an existing duty conferring an extra benefit provides good consideration for a second contract.
    • A. 

      Williams v Roffey Bros & Nelson Ltd

    • B. 

      Hartley v Ponsonby

    • C. 

      Glasbrook v Glamorgan

    • D. 

      Shadwell v Shadwell

  • 107. 
    Performace of an existing obligation to one person can serve as good consideration towards a second.
    • A. 

      Shadwell v Shadwell

    • B. 

      Williams v Roffey Bros & Nelson Ltd

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Beswick v Beswick

  • 108. 
    Pinnell's Exception: payment by someone other than the debtor is described in which case?
    • A. 

      Foakes v Beer

    • B. 

      Welbey v Drake

    • C. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    • D. 

      Re Cimex

  • 109. 
    Pinnell's principle is illustrated by which case?
    • A. 

      Combe v Combe

    • B. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • C. 

      Re McArdle

    • D. 

      Foakes v Beer

  • 110. 
    Rejection can terminate the offer.   
    • A. 

      Dickinson v Dodds

    • B. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • C. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • D. 

      Byne v Van Tienhoven

  • 111. 
    Remoteness of damages is only awarded if the damage suffered should have been in the reasonable forsee of the ordinary man and the loss suffered should either arise as a natural consequence of the breach - Case I?
    • A. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • B. 

      Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd

    • C. 

      Express Newspapers v Silverstone

    • D. 

      Hillas v Arcos

  • 112. 
    Remoteness of damages is only awarded if the damage suffered should have been in the reasonable forsee of the ordinary man and the loss suffered should either arise as a natural consequence of the breach - Case II?
    • A. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • B. 

      Hillas v Arcos

    • C. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

    • D. 

      Re The Heron 11

  • 113. 
    Remoteness of damages is only awarded if the damage suffered should have been in the reasonable forsee of the ordinary man and the loss suffered should either arise as a natural consequence of the breach - Case III?
    • A. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • B. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

    • C. 

      Re The Heron 11

    • D. 

      The Mikalis Angelos

  • 114. 
    Remoteness of forseeability in negligence is defined by which case?
    • A. 

      The Moorcock

    • B. 

      The Mikalis Angelos

    • C. 

      The Wagon Mound

    • D. 

      Re The Heron 11

  • 115. 
    Representation cannot be contitutes as an opinion unless it is cleary a genuine opinion.
    • A. 

      Bisset v Wilkinson

    • B. 

      Evert v Williams

    • C. 

      Daniels v Daniels

    • D. 

      Combe v Combe

  • 116. 
    Res ipsa loquitar, in negligence, means the facts of the case speak for themselves that it demonstrates without doubt the defendent was being negligent. Name the 2 cases.
    • A. 

      Richley v Fould

    • B. 

      Leigh v Simm

    • C. 

      Mahon v Osborne

    • D. 

      Latimer v AEC

  • 117. 
    Auditors owe no duty of care to a general member of the public who relies on published accounts in order to acquire shares. The proper purpose of the accounts is to report to the company, that is, to the shareholders as a body, not as individuals.
    • A. 

      Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

    • B. 

      JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom

    • C. 

      ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn

    • D. 

      Hedley Byrne & Co v Hellers & Partners Ltd

  • 118. 
    Restrictive covenants on land apply to subsequent owners.
    • A. 

      Donahue v Stevenson

    • B. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

    • C. 

      Shamia v Joory

    • D. 

      Keech v Sandford

  • 119. 
    Revocation must be communicated to the offeree.
    • A. 

      Ward v Byham

    • B. 

      Hartly v Ponsonby

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Byne v Van Tienhoven

  • 120. 
    Silence cannot be acceptance.
    • A. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • B. 

      Fielthouse v Bindley

    • C. 

      Powell v Lee

    • D. 

      Errington v Errinton

  • 121. 
    Specific performance will particularly not be available in a contract for personal services.
    • A. 

      Lumley v Wagner

    • B. 

      Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel

    • C. 

      Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese

    • D. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

  • 122. 
    The articles may empower directors to refuse share transfers without giving reasons; they must exercise such right in good faith.
    • A. 

      Ewing v Buttercup Margarine

    • B. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • C. 

      Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd

    • D. 

      Bushell v Faith

  • 123. 
    The court of Appeal made it clear that the veil will only be lifted where a corporate structure has been used as a deliberate foil to avoid liabilities. Name the case.
    • A. 

      Adams v Cape Industries

    • B. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • C. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • D. 

      Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries

  • 124. 
    The court will grant an injunction to prevent breach of a negative term of a contract, even though the positive part is not specifically enforceable.
    • A. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • B. 

      Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas

    • C. 

      Warner Bros v Nelson

    • D. 

      Bushell v Faith

  • 125. 
    The date on the certificate of incorporation is conclusive proof.
    • A. 

      Jubilee Cotton Mills v Lewes

    • B. 

      Regal Hastings v Gulliver

    • C. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • D. 

      R v Oll

  • 126. 
    The offer must still be open at the time of acceptance.   
    • A. 

      Patridge v Crittenden

    • B. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • C. 

      Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    • D. 

      Grainger v Gough

  • 127. 
    The offeror may specify a particular method of communication for acceptance.
    • A. 

      Adams v Lindsell

    • B. 

      Entores v Miles Far East Corporation

    • C. 

      Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes

    • D. 

      Household Fire Insurance v Grant

  • 128. 
    The postal rule applies even if the letter is not received by the offeree.
    • A. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • B. 

      Household Fire Insurance v Grant

    • C. 

      Carslogie v Norway

    • D. 

      McKew v Holland

  • 129. 
    When a party accepts an anticipatory breach, he does not have to inform the party in breach, any conduct which shows that the injured party is treating the contract as at an end is sufficient. 
    • A. 

      Thompson v Robinson

    • B. 

      Vitol SA v Noref Ltd

    • C. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    • D. 

      Jarvis v Swan Tours

  • 130. 
    Veil of incorporation will be lifted if a company is formed as a sham.   
    • A. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • B. 

      Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • C. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • D. 

      Lynn v Bamber

  • 131. 
    If the preferrence was given, creating a fixed charge, in favour of a director, the relevant period is extended to one year from the date of transaction.
    • A. 

      Welby v Drake

    • B. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

    • C. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    • D. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

  • 132. 
    To establish causality and possibility of breaking the chain, name the case for multi-causes.
    • A. 

      Evans v Cross

    • B. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • C. 

      Gilford Mottor Company Ltd v Horne

    • D. 

      Fairchild v Glenhaven

  • 133. 
    Veil of incorporation will be lifted if it is in public interest to do so for i.e. to prevent trade with undesirables or for illegal purposes.
    • A. 

      The Wagon Mound

    • B. 

      The Moorcock

    • C. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • D. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

  • 134. 
    To be able to achieve full compensation under anticipatory breach, the injured party must have been in a position to complete their obligation at the date the contract was due to start.
    • A. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

    • B. 

      Re The Heron 11

    • C. 

      The Moorcock

    • D. 

      The Mikalis Angelos

  • 135. 
    The postal rule states that acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is posted.
    • A. 

      Regal v Gulliver

    • B. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • C. 

      Adams v Lindsell

    • D. 

      Powell v Lee

  • 136. 
    To establish causality and possibility of breaking the chain, name the 2 cases for "but for" test.
    • A. 

      Wilsher v Essex

    • B. 

      Fairchild v Glenhaven

    • C. 

      Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

    • D. 

      McKew v Holland

  • 137. 
    To establish breach of duty in negligence, it needs to take account of the standard practice.
    • A. 

      Paris v Stepney

    • B. 

      Mahon v Osborne

    • C. 

      Leigh v Simm

    • D. 

      Richley v Fould

  • 138. 
    To establish breach of duty in negligece, it needs to take account of the practicality and cost of the risk avoidance.
    • A. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • B. 

      Carslogie v Norway

    • C. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • D. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

  • 139. 
    The postal rule doesnot apply if the offeror states that he must actually receive the accecptance.
    • A. 

      Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes

    • B. 

      Lazenby Garages v Wright

    • C. 

      Jarvis v Swan Tours

    • D. 

      Alexander v Rolls Royace

  • 140. 
    Tort of passing off will be only in the circumstances where both tthe business have similar name as well as similar business.
    • A. 

      Re New British Iron Company

    • B. 

      Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine

    • C. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • D. 

      Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

  • 141. 
    To establish breach of duty in negligence, it needs to take account of the seriousness of the risk.
    • A. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • B. 

      Glasgow v Taylor

    • C. 

      Paris v Stepney

    • D. 

      Leigh v Simm

  • 142. 
    Which case describes the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Case - III?
    • A. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • B. 

      Combe v Combe

    • C. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • D. 

      Daniels v Daniels

  • 143. 
      Notice of revocation must be communicated through a reliable third party.
    • A. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • B. 

      Errington v Errington

    • C. 

      Powell v Lee

    • D. 

      Dickinson v Dodds

  • 144. 
    When a party accepts an anticipatory breach, he does not have to inform the party in breach; any conduct which shows that the injured party is treating the contract as at an end is sufficient.
    • A. 

      Thompson v Robinson

    • B. 

      Vitol SA v Noref Ltd

    • C. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    • D. 

      Jarvis v Swan Tours

  • 145. 
    Directors may escape liability if they can show the court that they took every stop necessary to mitigate or the creditors' potential loss.
    • A. 

      Re Brazillian Rubber Plantation & States

    • B. 

      Re McArdle

    • C. 

      Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    • D. 

      Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

  • 146. 
    The injured party has a duty to mitigate their loss.
    • A. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries Ltd

    • B. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

    • C. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • D. 

      Brace v Calder

  • 147. 
    The injured party has a duty to mitigate their loss.       
    • A. 

      Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries Ltd

    • B. 

      C & P Haulage v Middleton

    • C. 

      D & C Builders v Rees

    • D. 

      Brace v Calder

  • 148. 
    The House of the Loards made it clear that in order to bring a successful case in passing off the claimant must establish 3 things. Name the case.
    • A. 

      Harvey v Facey

    • B. 

      Adams v Lindsell

    • C. 

      Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine

    • D. 

      Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc

  • 149. 
    Name the case of bank references that lead to the neligence of accountants is sufficiently proximate.
    • A. 

      Hadley v Baxendale

    • B. 

      Hedley Byrne & Co v Hellers & Partners Ltd

    • C. 

      ICI v Shatwell

    • D. 

      Shadwell v Shadwell

  • 150. 
    Name the 2 cases of auditors' representation that lead to the neligence of auditors in special relationship.
    • A. 

      ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn

    • B. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • C. 

      JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom

    • D. 

      Thomas v Thomas