ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test
-
A beneficiary may sue a trustee.
-
Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association
-
Pender v Lushington
-
Keech v Sandford
-
Evans v Cross
-
ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test
Corporate and business law is one of the fun topics for an ACCA student to take. It gives them a view of the laws that govern the business industry. How much do you know about English law and the cases you have covered in the class? Give the quiz a try.
Quiz Preview
- 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.
-
Garrod v Scott
-
Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber
-
Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne
-
Lynn v Bamber
Correct Answer
A. Lynn v BamberExplanation
In Lynn v Bamber, the court held that a claim for damages was barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Act states that a claim must be commenced within 6 years from the date the breach could have been first discovered. This means that if the claim is not brought within this time period, it is considered time-barred and cannot be pursued. Therefore, Lynn's claim for damages was likely dismissed because it was commenced outside the statutory limitation period.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
A counter offer can terminates an offer.
-
Hyde v Wrench
-
Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant
-
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern
-
Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association
Correct Answer
A. Hyde v WrenchExplanation
In Hyde v Wrench, the court held that a counter offer terminates the original offer. This means that when the offeree responds to the offer with a counter offer, it acts as a rejection of the original offer and creates a new offer. The original offeror is then free to accept or reject the counter offer. This case established the principle that a counter offer effectively ends the original offer and changes the terms of the agreement.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
A manufacturer of goods may be sued by ultimate customers.
-
Williams v Carwardine
-
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
-
Stevenson v McLean
-
Donaghue v Stevenson
Correct Answer
A. Donaghue v StevensonExplanation
Donaghue v Stevenson is the correct answer because it established the legal principle of duty of care owed by manufacturers to ultimate customers. In this case, Mrs. Donaghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail and suffered illness as a result. The House of Lords ruled that the manufacturer, Stevenson, had a duty of care to Mrs. Donaghue, even though there was no contractual relationship between them. This landmark case set the precedent for product liability and paved the way for customers to sue manufacturers for harm caused by their products.Rate this question:
-
- 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.
-
Mersy Docks v Coggins
-
Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & Others
-
Cassidy v Ministry of Health
-
Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions
Correct Answer
A. Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & OthersExplanation
In Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & Others, the court held that a person with special knowledge or skills, or claiming to have them, must exercise them at the standard of a reasonable person of equivalent position. This means that if someone possesses specialized knowledge or skills, they are expected to use them in a manner that a reasonable person with the same expertise would. This case establishes the standard of care required for individuals with specialized knowledge or skills in their respective fields.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
A plc must hold AGM every calender year.
-
Stilk v Myriek
-
Gibson v Barton
-
Avery v Bowden
-
Dunlop v New Garage
Correct Answer
A. Gibson v BartonExplanation
Gibson v Barton is the correct answer because it is a relevant case that supports the statement that a plc must hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) every calendar year. In this case, it was established that a company's articles of association can require the holding of an AGM, and failure to do so would result in a breach of the company's obligations. Therefore, Gibson v Barton provides legal precedent for the requirement of a plc to hold an AGM annually.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
A request for information is not a counter offer.
-
Stevenson v McLean
-
Pender v Lushington
-
Clarke v Dunraven
-
Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association
Correct Answer
A. Stevenson v McLeanExplanation
In the case of Stevenson v McLean, the court ruled that a request for information does not qualify as a counter offer. This means that if one party asks for more information or clarification regarding an offer, it does not change the terms of the original offer or create a new offer. The court's decision in this case established the principle that a mere inquiry or request for information does not have the legal effect of rejecting or modifying an offer. Therefore, the correct answer to the question is Stevenson v McLean.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
A response to request for information is not an offer.
-
Stevenson v McLean
-
Harvey v Facey
-
Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber
-
Williams v Carwardine
Correct Answer
A. Harvey v FaceyExplanation
In the case of Harvey v Facey, the court held that a response to a request for information does not constitute an offer. This means that if someone asks for information, the person providing the information is not making an offer that can be accepted. Instead, it is merely a statement of fact or information. Therefore, the correct answer to the question is Harvey v Facey.Rate this question:
-
- 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.
-
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
-
Hoenig v Issacs
-
Latimer v AEC
-
Errington v Errington
Correct Answer(s)
A. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
A. Errington v ErringtonExplanation
Both Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Errington v Errington are examples of unilateral contracts. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the company promised to pay a reward to anyone who used their product as directed and still contracted influenza. This constituted a unilateral contract as the company made a promise in return for the action of using the product. In Errington v Errington, a father promised to transfer ownership of a house to his son and daughter-in-law if they continued to make mortgage payments. This also constituted a unilateral contract as the promise was made in return for the action of continuing to make payments.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Acceptance can be communicated by reliable 3rd party.
-
Powell v Lee
-
Merritt v Merritt
-
Evans v Cross
-
Gilford Motor Company v Horne
Correct Answer
A. Powell v LeeExplanation
In Powell v Lee, the court held that acceptance can be communicated by a reliable third party. This means that if a third party is authorized to accept an offer on behalf of the offeree, their acceptance will be considered valid. This case established the principle that acceptance does not always have to be communicated directly by the offeree to the offeror, but can be done through a reliable intermediary.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Acceptance cannot vary the original offer; that would be a counter offer.
-
R v Clark
-
Gunthing v Lynn
-
Powell v Lee
-
Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters
Correct Answer
A. Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti MetersExplanation
The case of Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters is the correct answer because it supports the statement that acceptance cannot vary the original offer. In this case, Northland Airlines made an offer to purchase meters from Dennis Ferranti Meters. However, Dennis Ferranti Meters attempted to vary the terms of the offer in their acceptance. The court ruled that this constituted a counter offer, as acceptance cannot change the terms of the original offer. Therefore, this case serves as an example to support the given statement.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Acceptance may be by conduct, however, once the person has started the act of acceptance then the offeror cannot revoke.
-
Combe v Combe
-
Thomas v Thomas
-
Beswick v Beswick
-
Errington v Errington
Correct Answer
A. Errington v ErringtonExplanation
Errington v Errington is the correct answer because it supports the statement that once a person has started the act of acceptance, the offeror cannot revoke. In this case, the court held that a father's promise to transfer the ownership of a house to his son and daughter-in-law upon their payment of the mortgage installments was binding. The son and daughter-in-law had partially performed their obligations by making the payments, and therefore, the father could not revoke his promise. This case establishes the principle of promissory estoppel, which prevents the offeror from revoking an offer once the offeree has relied on it and started performing their obligations.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
Acceptance may be by conduct.
-
Errington v Errington
-
Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters
-
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries
-
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Correct Answer
A. Errington v ErringtonExplanation
Errington v Errington is the correct answer because this case established the principle of acceptance by conduct. In this case, a father promised to transfer ownership of a house to his son and daughter-in-law if they continued to pay the mortgage. The court held that their continued payment of the mortgage constituted acceptance of the offer, even though it was not communicated in words. This case illustrates that acceptance can be implied through the conduct of the party accepting the offer.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror, but offeror may waive the right of communication.
-
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
-
Williams v Carwardine
-
Re McArdle
-
Tulk v Moxhay
Correct Answer
A. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball CompanyExplanation
In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the court held that acceptance of an offer can be communicated through performance of the requested act. The case involved a company that advertised a reward for anyone who contracted influenza after using their smoke ball. Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as instructed and subsequently fell ill. The court ruled that her act of using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer and she was entitled to the reward. This case established the principle that acceptance can be communicated through performance, even if the offeror does not explicitly require communication.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time.
-
Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant
-
Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters
-
Jubilee Cotton Mills v Lewes
-
Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne
Correct Answer
A. Household Fire Insurance Company v GrantExplanation
In Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant, it was established that acceptance of an offer must be made within a reasonable time. This means that if someone receives an offer and wants to accept it, they must do so within a timeframe that is considered reasonable based on the circumstances. The case likely involved a situation where the acceptance of an offer was delayed, and the court ruled that the delay was unreasonable. This principle ensures that parties involved in a contract can rely on timely acceptance and prevents unnecessary delays in the formation of contracts.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Adverts are normally invitations.
-
Williams v Roffey
-
Daniel v Daniel
-
Bushel v Faith
-
Patridge v Crittendon
Correct Answer
A. Patridge v Crittendon -
- 17.
Alteration allowing compulsory purchase of minority share will normally be disallowed.
-
Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa
-
Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel
-
Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw
-
Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas
Correct Answer
A. Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli SteelExplanation
Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel is the correct answer because this case involved the issue of compulsory purchase of minority shares. In this case, the court disallowed the alteration that allowed the compulsory purchase of minority shares. Therefore, this case supports the statement that such alterations will normally be disallowed.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Alteration of articles allow explusion of competing members.
-
Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese
-
Keech v Sandford
-
Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers
-
Re New British Iron Company
Correct Answer
A. Sidebottom v Kershaw LeeseExplanation
Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese is the correct answer because it is a case that pertains to the alteration of articles of association. In this case, the court held that the alteration of articles can lead to the expulsion of competing members. Therefore, this case supports the given statement that alteration of articles allows the expulsion of competing members.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Alteration of articles allow explusion of defrauding directors.
-
Lamb v Camden
-
Lynn v Bamber
-
Gunthing v Lynn
-
Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers
Correct Answer
A. Shuttleworth v Cox BrothersExplanation
Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers is the correct answer because this case established the principle that alteration of articles can allow for the expulsion of defrauding directors. In this case, the court held that the company's articles could be altered to include a provision allowing for the removal of directors who were found to be engaged in fraudulent activities. This decision set a precedent for future cases involving the expulsion of directors for misconduct or fraud.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Alteration of articles does not relieve the company of liability for commitments incurred before the change.
-
Dunlop v New Garage
-
Dunlop v Selfridges
-
Ford v Armstrong
-
Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw
Correct Answer
A. Southern Foundaries v ShirlawExplanation
The correct answer is Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw. This case is relevant because it established the principle that altering articles of association does not release a company from any liabilities or commitments it had before the change. This means that even if a company changes its articles, it still remains responsible for any obligations it entered into prior to the alteration.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
An advert offering reward is an offer, not an invitation.
-
R v Clark
-
Hyde v Wrench
-
Williams V Carwardine
-
Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber
Correct Answer
A. R v ClarkExplanation
R v Clark is the correct answer because it is a legal case that establishes the principle that an advert offering a reward is considered an offer, not an invitation. In this case, the defendant placed an advertisement offering a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of a police officer. The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer, and when the plaintiff provided the information, he accepted the offer and was entitled to the reward. This case is often cited in contract law to distinguish between offers and invitations to treat.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
Another example of commercial argreements with exclusion clause in it.
-
Appleson v Littlewoods
-
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
-
Patridge v Crittenden
-
Tulk v Moxhay
Correct Answer
A. Appleson v Littlewoods -
- 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.
-
Rose & Frank v Crompton
-
Stewart v Casey
-
Avery v Bowden
-
Hillas v Arcos
Correct Answer
A. Avery v BowdenExplanation
In Avery v Bowden, the court held that if the injured party chooses to wait and hope that the other party will change their minds after an anticipatory breach of contract, they may lose their right to sue. This means that by not taking immediate legal action, the injured party risks forfeiting their ability to seek damages or enforce the terms of the contract.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party go ahead with their obligations and then sue.
-
Roscorla v Thomas
-
Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway
-
White v Bluett
-
White and Carter Councils v MacGregor
Correct Answer
A. White and Carter Councils v MacGregorExplanation
White and Carter Councils v MacGregor is the correct answer because it is a case that involves anticipatory breach of contract. In this case, the defendant had entered into a contract with the claimant for the provision of advertising services. However, the defendant informed the claimant before the contract commenced that they no longer wished to proceed with the advertising. Despite this, the claimant went ahead with their obligations and then sued for the full contract price. The court held that the claimant was entitled to do so because the defendant's repudiation of the contract constituted an anticipatory breach, and the claimant had the right to treat the contract as still valid and claim damages.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party may sue immediately.
-
Welby v Drake
-
Hochester v De La Tour
-
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
-
Combe v Combe
Correct Answer
A. Hochester v De La TourExplanation
Hochester v De La Tour is the correct answer because it is a case that involves anticipatory breach of contract. In this case, the defendant had entered into a contract to engage the plaintiff as a tour manager, but later informed the plaintiff that he no longer required his services before the agreed-upon start date. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted an anticipatory breach of contract, allowing the plaintiff to sue immediately for damages. This case established the principle that when one party repudiates a contract before performance is due, the innocent party can treat the contract as terminated and seek remedies.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
Articles bind members to the company.
-
Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association
-
Clarke v Dunraven
-
Pender v Lushington
-
Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co
Correct Answer
A. Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders AssociationExplanation
In the case of Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association, the court ruled that the articles of association of a company create a binding contract between the members and the company. This means that the members are obligated to abide by the provisions outlined in the articles, and failure to do so can result in legal consequences. This case established the principle that the articles of association are a crucial document that governs the relationship between the company and its members.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
Articles bind members to the members.
-
Andrews v Singer
-
Hutton v Warren
-
Bettini v Gye
-
Clarke v Dunraven
Correct Answer
A. Clarke v DunravenExplanation
Clarke v Dunraven is the correct answer because it is the only option that aligns with the statement "Articles bind members to the members." In this case, the reference to "articles" suggests that there is a contractual agreement or set of rules that bind the members of a group or organization to each other. The other options, Andrews v Singer, Hutton v Warren, and Bettini v Gye, do not involve the concept of articles or binding members in the same way.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
Articles bind the company to the members.
-
Pender v Lushington
-
Hadley v Baxendale
-
Latimer v AEC
-
Evert v Williams
Correct Answer
A. Pender v LushingtonExplanation
Pender v Lushington is the correct answer because this case established the principle that articles of association bind the company to its members. In this case, the court ruled that the articles of association were a contract between the company and its members, and therefore the company was bound to adhere to the provisions outlined in the articles. This case is significant in company law as it clarifies the legal relationship between a company and its members and reinforces the importance of articles of association in governing the internal affairs of a company.Rate this question:
-
- 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.
-
Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas
-
Re Cimex
-
Re Tunbridge
-
Re Fairway Magazines Ltd
Correct Answer
A. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas -
- 30.
Articles do not create a contract between the company and third parties.
-
Caparo v Dickman
-
Lynn v Bamber
-
Daniels v Daniels
-
Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co
Correct Answer
A. Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance CoExplanation
Eley v Positive Government Life Assurance Co is the correct answer because this case established the principle that articles of association do not create a contract between the company and third parties. In this case, Eley was a solicitor who held shares in the company and claimed that he had a contractual relationship with the company based on the articles of association. However, the court held that the articles only create a contractual relationship between the shareholders themselves and not between the company and the shareholders or any third parties. This case has been widely cited and followed in subsequent cases to determine the nature of the relationship between a company and its shareholders.Rate this question:
-
- 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.
-
Re McArdle
-
Re New British Iron Company
-
Re The Heron 11
-
The Mikalis Angelos
Correct Answer
A. Re New British Iron CompanyExplanation
The correct answer is "re New British Iron Company" because it is referring to a specific case or legal precedent that is relevant to the given statement. The case of New British Iron Company likely involved the use of articles as evidence in a contract dispute, demonstrating that they can be used to establish the terms of a contract that was created independently of the articles themselves. This case serves as an example or support for the statement provided.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
Battery is trespass against the person by bringing intentionally a material object into contact with another person; it doesnot necessarily involve violence.
-
Nash v Sheen
-
Williams v Roffey
-
Thomas v Thomas
-
Central London Trust Property v High Trees House
Correct Answer
A. Nash v SheenExplanation
In the case of Nash v Sheen, the correct answer is that battery is a trespass against the person by intentionally bringing a material object into contact with another person. This means that battery can occur without necessarily involving violence.Rate this question:
-
- 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.
-
Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel
-
Nettleship v Weston
-
Lamb v Camden
-
Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers
Correct Answer
A. Nettleship v WestonExplanation
In Nettleship v Weston, the court ruled that lack of skill can be considered as a breach of care. This means that if a person fails to achieve the required standard of care due to their lack of skill, they can be held accountable for any resulting damages or injuries. This case established the principle that individuals are expected to exercise a certain level of skill and competence in their actions, and failure to do so can be considered as a breach of care.Rate this question:
-
- 34.
Class rights may be conferred upon particular members or group of members through the articles.
-
Collins v Godefroy
-
Hutton v Warren
-
Cumbrian Newspapers v Cumberland & Westmoreland Herald
-
Express Newspapers v Silverstone
Correct Answer
A. Cumbrian Newspapers v Cumberland & Westmoreland HeraldExplanation
Cumbrian Newspapers v Cumberland & Westmoreland Herald is the correct answer because this case involves the issue of conferring class rights through the articles. The case likely provides a legal precedent or ruling that supports the statement in the question. However, without further information, it is not possible to provide a more specific explanation of the case or its outcome.Rate this question:
-
- 35.
Commercial agreements for intention to create legal relations, may include an express exclusion clause, that is the contract is binding in honour only.
-
Parker v Clark
-
Re Cimex
-
Jones v Vernon Pools
-
Bettini v Gye
Correct Answer
A. Jones v Vernon PoolsExplanation
Jones v Vernon Pools is the correct answer because it is a case that involves a commercial agreement with an express exclusion clause. In this case, the court held that the agreement between Jones and Vernon Pools was binding in honor only, meaning that it did not create a legally enforceable contract. This decision was based on the presence of an exclusion clause that clearly stated the intention of the parties to not be legally bound by the agreement. Therefore, Jones v Vernon Pools is the most relevant case to support the statement in the question.Rate this question:
-
- 36.
Company is a separate legal personification in its own right.
-
Combe v Combe
-
Merritt v Merritt
-
Spellman v Spellman
-
Saloman v Saloman
Correct Answer
A. Saloman v SalomanExplanation
Saloman v Saloman is the correct answer because this landmark case established the principle of separate legal personality for companies. In this case, Mr. Saloman incorporated a company to transfer his business to it, and he and his family members became shareholders. When the company went bankrupt, Mr. Saloman argued that he should not be personally liable for the company's debts. The court ruled in his favor, stating that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, and therefore Mr. Saloman was not personally liable. This case set a precedent for the concept of limited liability and the distinct legal personality of companies.Rate this question:
-
- 37.
Company's name may be restricted by statute.
-
ANZAC
-
Latimer v AEC
-
Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine
-
Re New British Iron Company
Correct Answer
A. ANZACExplanation
The given answer ANZAC is a company name that may be restricted by statute. Certain countries have laws in place that prohibit the use of certain words or combinations of words in company names. ANZAC is an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, which is a term of national significance in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, using ANZAC as a company name may be restricted by law to protect the historical and cultural significance of the term.Rate this question:
-
- 38.
Consideration given is over and above a contractual duty.
-
Hartley v Ponsonby
-
Williams v Roffey
-
Thomas v Thomas
-
White v Bluett
Correct Answer
A. Hartley v PonsonbyExplanation
Hartley v Ponsonby is the correct answer because it is a case that deals with the concept of consideration given over and above a contractual duty. In this case, the crew members of a ship were promised extra wages for undertaking a dangerous voyage, even though they were already contractually obligated to perform their duties. The court held that the promise of extra wages was enforceable as it was consideration given over and above their existing contractual duty.Rate this question:
-
- 39.
Consideration given is over and above a legal duty.
-
R v Clark
-
Collins v Godefroy
-
Hartley v Ponsonby
-
Glasbrook v Glamorgan
Correct Answer
A. Glasbrook v GlamorganExplanation
Glasbrook v Glamorgan is the correct answer because it is a case that established the principle that consideration given over and above a legal duty can be valid. In this case, the police requested additional protection during a labor strike, and the mine owners agreed to provide it. The court held that the mine owners' promise to provide the extra protection was enforceable because it was made in return for the police officers' promise to continue working during the strike, which was considered consideration given over and above their legal duty to maintain order.Rate this question:
-
- 40.
Consideration given is over and above a natural duty.
-
Ward v Byham
-
Williams v Roffey
-
Stilk v Myriek
-
Thomas v Thomas
Correct Answer
A. Ward v ByhamExplanation
Ward v Byham is the correct answer because it establishes the principle that consideration can be given over and above a natural duty. In this case, the mother was under a natural duty to care for her child, but the father promised to pay her a weekly sum if she continued to care for the child. The court held that the father's promise constituted valid consideration, as it was more than what the mother was already obligated to do. This case is often cited as an example of how consideration can be found even in situations where there is a pre-existing duty.Rate this question:
-
- 41.
Consideration is defined in 2 cases in 2 different ways. Name the cases.
-
Currie v Misa
-
Dunlop v Selfridges
-
Lazenby Garages v Wright
-
Hoenig v Issacs
Correct Answer(s)
A. Currie v Misa
A. Dunlop v SelfridgesExplanation
The given correct answer lists two cases where consideration is defined in different ways: Currie v Misa and Dunlop v Selfridges. In Currie v Misa, consideration is defined as a "benefit or detriment" that is exchanged between parties in a contract. In Dunlop v Selfridges, consideration is defined as "practical benefit" or "economic advantage" gained by one party in a contract. These cases highlight the different perspectives and interpretations of consideration in contract law.Rate this question:
-
- 42.
Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a natural duty already owed.
-
Thomas v Thomas
-
White v Bluett
-
Ward v Byham
-
Hoenig v Issacs
Correct Answer
A. White v BluettExplanation
In White v Bluett, the court held that a son's claim for unpaid debts from his father's estate was not valid because the son's promise not to complain about his father's will did not constitute valid consideration. The court determined that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law, and the son's promise did not meet this requirement. This case demonstrates that consideration must be more than a pre-existing duty or something already owed, as it is not sufficient to support a valid contract.Rate this question:
-
- 43.
Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a contractual duty already owed ... .. dghgh...
-
Stilk v Myriek
-
The Moorcock
-
The Wagon Mound
-
Williams v Roffey
Correct Answer
A. Stilk v MyriekExplanation
Stilk v Myriek is the correct answer because it established the principle that consideration must be sufficient, meaning it must have some value or benefit to the party receiving it. The case involved a landlord who promised to waive rent arrears if the tenant agreed to make future payments promptly. The court held that the promise was not enforceable because the tenant was already under a contractual duty to pay rent, so there was no additional benefit or detriment provided by the tenant's promise. This case clarified the requirement for consideration in contract law.Rate this question:
-
- 44.
Consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a legal duty already owed.
-
Byne v Van Tienhoven
-
Beswick v Beswick
-
Stewart v Casey
-
Collins v Godefroy
Correct Answer
A. Collins v GodefroyExplanation
In Collins v Godefroy, the court held that consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a legal duty already owed. This means that if a person is already obligated to do something by law, their performance of that duty cannot be considered as valid consideration in a contract. In this case, the court found that the defendant had a legal duty to attend court and give evidence, so his promise to do so in exchange for payment was not valid consideration. Therefore, Collins v Godefroy is the correct answer because it supports the principle that consideration must be something of value that is not already required by law.Rate this question:
-
- 45.
Consideration must have some value.
-
Chappell v Nestle
-
Latimer v AEC
-
Jarvis v Swan Tours
-
Hoeing v Issac
Correct Answer
A. Chappell v NestleExplanation
Chappell v Nestle is the correct answer because it is a famous case that established the principle that consideration must have some value. In this case, Nestle had a promotion where customers could send in wrappers from their chocolate bars along with some money to receive a music record. The court ruled that the wrappers did not have any intrinsic value and therefore did not qualify as valid consideration. This case set a precedent for future contract law cases regarding the requirement of consideration.Rate this question:
-
- 46.
Contractual terms which are judicially implied for busness efficacy.
-
Currie v Misa
-
The Moorcock
-
Hutton v Warren
-
Foakes v Beer
Correct Answer
A. The MoorcockExplanation
The Moorcock is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in contract law that established the concept of implied terms for business efficacy. In this case, the court held that a term can be implied into a contract if it is necessary to give the contract commercial or business efficacy. This means that if a term is necessary for the contract to work effectively or to achieve its intended purpose, it can be implied by the court, even if it is not expressly stated in the contract. This principle is important in ensuring that contracts are fair and workable in practical terms.Rate this question:
-
- 47.
Contractual terms which are judicially implied for course of trade.
-
Andrews v Singer
-
Express Newspapers v Silverstone
-
Hadley v Baxendale
-
Hillas v Arcos
Correct Answer
A. Hillas v ArcosExplanation
Hillas v Arcos is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in contract law that established the concept of "reasonable and business-like" terms being implied into contracts. The case involved a dispute over the sale of timber, and the court held that certain terms, such as the quality and dimensions of the timber, should be implied based on the course of dealing between the parties. This decision has had a significant impact on contract law, as it recognizes the importance of implied terms in commercial transactions.Rate this question:
-
- 48.
Contractual terms which are judicially implied for trade custom.
-
Hillas v Arcos
-
Hutton v Warren
-
Rose & Frank v Crompton
-
Chapletown v Barry
Correct Answer
A. Hutton v WarrenExplanation
Hutton v Warren is the correct answer because this case established the principle of judicially implied terms based on trade custom. In this case, the court held that certain terms can be implied into a contract if they are necessary to give the contract efficacy and reflect the common understanding of the parties involved. This decision has been influential in shaping the law regarding implied terms in contracts based on trade custom.Rate this question:
-
- 49.
Court may imply an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum.
-
Stewart v Casey
-
Roscorla v Thomas
-
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern
-
Merritt v Merritt
Correct Answer
A. Stewart v CaseyExplanation
Stewart v Casey is the correct answer because this case established the principle that a court may imply an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum. In this case, the defendant had promised to pay the plaintiff a reasonable sum for the work he had done, and the court held that this promise was enforceable even though the amount was not specified. This case is significant because it recognizes that parties can be bound by implied promises in contracts.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 10, 2011Quiz Created by
Farzana_hussain
Back to top