Contract - Agreement: Cases
16 Questions
| Attempts: 92
A quiz to test and reinforce your knowledge of the cases of Agreement.
This quiz contains 16 multiple choice questions, and should cover all the very basic cases necessary for a good answer on Agreement!
Typically one case per principle or exception to a principle I narrowed my revision down to, which totals 15 cases.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
A flick knife displayed in the window of a shop was considered to be an invitation to treat because the shop owner cannot be assumed to be liable to supply every customer in the shop with any product. Displaying products can only entice customers to make an offer to the shopkeeper. Which of the following cases am I referring to?
- A.
Grainger v Gough
- B.
Harvey v Facey
- C.
Fisher v Bell
Correct Answer
C. Fisher v Bell -
- 2.
The principle referred to in the last question (displaying in shop windows) was reinforced, however in relation to displaying items on shelves, in which case?
- A.
Partridge v Crittenden
- B.
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
- C.
Adams v Lindsall
Correct Answer
B. Pharmaceutical Society v Boots -
- 3.
One should assume that an advertisement is an invitation to treat. I mean - you couldn't expect the defendant in this case to supply Bramblefinch Hens to the whole world, could you?
- A.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
- B.
Henthorn v Fraser
- C.
Partridge v Crittenden
Correct Answer
C. Partridge v Crittenden -
- 4.
But how definate can you be? In Grainger v Gough they even provided a price list for their wonderful wines. Is this an offer?
- A.
Offer
- B.
Invitation to treat
Correct Answer
B. Invitation to treatExplanation
Despite providing a price list, it was held that it could not leave a situation whereby you are contractually liable provide limited stock to a potentially unlimited number of customers.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
But there is an exception to the rule on advertisements for unilateral contracts. In this case the wording of the advertisement was so clear and even provided that in performing the act (HINT: and contracting influenza) you would be rewarded from money deposited with the Alliance Bank.
- A.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
- B.
Entores v Miles Far East
- C.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Correct Answer
A. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co -
- 6.
In this case, one party requested the lowest sale price for a property, to which the other provided the lowest price of £900. It was held that this is not an offer, it is merely declaring the lowest price they would sell it for - the other party should then offer the £900 which the seller can then accept should they wish to.
- A.
Hyde v Wrench
- B.
Harvey v Facey
- C.
Stevenson v McLean
Correct Answer
B. Harvey v Facey -
- 7.
Once offered a price of £1000, if you respond with an offer of £950, this is a counter-offer and the initial offer is invalid. So you can't go back and say, okay £1000 is reasonable I would like to accept that - they may have sold it for £1000 to somebody else! Well, you snooze you lose! In which of the following cases did this happen?
- A.
Hyde v Wrench
- B.
Henthorn v Fraser
- C.
Brinkibon v Stahag
Correct Answer
A. Hyde v Wrench -
- 8.
Okay, fair enough - I like the price... I like the product... When can I have it? Requesting further information is not a counter offer, it is not changing any of the terms of the contract, it's just requesting exactly what the contract entails... Who requested delivery details?
- A.
Brinkibon v Stahag
- B.
Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping
- C.
Stevenson v McLean
Correct Answer
C. Stevenson v McLean -
- 9.
Times have changed - but back in the day, Telex was the equivalent of our fax machine! I know - hard to believe... The point is, it was an instantaneous method of communicating acceptance, thus the offeror needed to be aware of the acceptance. Which case established this principle?
- A.
Shuey v United States
- B.
Entores v Miles Far East
- C.
Partridge v Crittenden
Correct Answer
B. Entores v Miles Far East -
- 10.
What if I send my acceptance, by fax - telex - answering machine... But outside ordinary office hours? Well, it isn't within the contemplation of the offeror so is not a valid acceptance until such a point that the office is open. In this case the acceptance was sent from London to Vienna, and was recieved within working hours, but if it wasn't read then it isn't in the offerors contemplation, therefore is an invalid acceptance? No, the acceptance is valid as long as it was received by the offeror - it is the offerors responsibility to arrange prompt handling of messages Which case?
- A.
Brinkibon v Stahag
- B.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
- C.
Adams v Lindsell
Correct Answer
A. Brinkibon v Stahag -
- 11.
Lagged communication includes the postal method. The postal rule applies to those who send an acceptance by post (this differs from revocation). The postal rule ensures that the acceptance as soon as the acceptance is posted and has left the hands of the offeree. This principle was used in a case consisting of the sale of wool. The acceptance was not received until the offerors time limit had lapsed, but it was held that the acceptance was valid because it was sent before the lapse. Which case was this?
- A.
Adams v Lindsell
- B.
Henthorn v Fraser
- C.
Errington v Errington & Woods
Correct Answer
A. Adams v Lindsell -
- 12.
In this case, the revocation was recieved by the offeree before the acceptance was received. The postal method of acceptance must have been within contemplation because of the distance from Liverpool to Birkenhead (19th Century) so the postal rule applied and the acceptance was valid before the revocation. Which case?
- A.
Adams v Lindsell
- B.
Henthorn v Fraser
- C.
Holwell Securities v Hughes
Correct Answer
B. Henthorn v Fraser -
- 13.
The postal rule can be avoided, in this case the offeror included the wording "must be notified" which the court held was a sufficient term to stop ensure the acceptance is within the offerors contemplation before the acceptance becomes valid despite the postal method being used.
- A.
Adams v Lindsell
- B.
Henthorn v Fraser
- C.
Holwell Securities v Hughes
Correct Answer
C. Holwell Securities v Hughes -
- 14.
So we know that if we post an acceptance it is valid from the time we post it, unless it has been avoided of course. But what about revocation? If a revocation has been posted it makes no difference to the normal rules of revocation, it must be communicated and the offeree must be aware of the revocation, until the point at which the revocation is received the offer can still be accepted. Which case covers this principle?
- A.
Henthorn v Fraser
- B.
Hyde v Wrench
- C.
Partridge v Crittenden
Correct Answer
A. Henthorn v Fraser -
- 15.
But how do we revoke a unilateral offer? Communicate the revocation to the whole world? You must revoke a unilateral offer through the same channels which the original offer was made, this is considered to be sufficient action. Which case involved discovering a criminal for a cash reward, which was later revoked?
- A.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
- B.
Shuey v US
- C.
Entores v Miles Far East
Correct Answer
B. Shuey v US -
- 16.
On the issue of revoking a unilateral offer, what if performance had begun? In this case, the son and daughter-in-law had paid the mortgage instalments of their later deceased father, as he had offered unilaterally that if they did they could keep the house when it was paid for. When the father died, his widowed wife sought possession, but because the performance had begun the offer could not be revoked. Which case?
- A.
Stevenson v McLean
- B.
Errington v Errington & Woods
- C.
Williams v Williams
Correct Answer
B. Errington v Errington & Woods -
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 22, 2022Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 02, 2011Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top