ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Farzana_hussain
F
Farzana_hussain
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 2 | Total Attempts: 1,716
| Attempts: 906
Quiz Flashcard
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/150 Questions

    Company is a separate legal personification in its own right.

    • Combe v Combe
    • Merritt v Merritt
    • Spellman v Spellman
    • Saloman v Saloman
Please wait...
Law Quizzes & Trivia
About This Quiz

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. 

    Consideration must have some value.

    • Chappell v Nestle

    • Latimer v AEC

    • Jarvis v Swan Tours

    • Hoeing v Issac

    Correct Answer
    A. Chappell v Nestle
    Explanation
    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:

  • 3. 

    Adverts are normally invitations.

    • Williams v Roffey

    • Daniel v Daniel

    • Bushel v Faith

    • Patridge v Crittendon

    Correct Answer
    A. Patridge v Crittendon
  • 4. 

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

    • Balfour v Balfour

    • Thomas v Thomas

    • Beswick v Beswick

    • Daniels v Daniels

    Correct Answer
    A. Balfour v Balfour
    Explanation
    Balfour v Balfour is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that established the concept of intention to create legal relations in domestic arrangements. In this case, Mr. Balfour made an agreement with his wife to pay her a monthly allowance while he was working abroad. However, when their relationship deteriorated and they separated, Mrs. Balfour sued for breach of contract. The court held that there was no intention to create legal relations in their domestic arrangement, and therefore, there was no enforceable contract. This case set the precedent that in domestic arrangements, there is a presumption against intention to create legal relations unless expressly stated.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    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?

    • Hadley v Baxendale

    • Hillas v Arcos

    • Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

    • Re The Heron 11

    Correct Answer
    A. Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries
    Explanation
    Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries is the correct answer because this case established the principle of remoteness of damages in contract law. In this case, the court held that damages can only be awarded if they were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made. The court also stated that damages must arise naturally from the breach and not be too remote. This case set the standard for determining whether damages are too remote and has been widely followed in contract law.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    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
  • 7. 

    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.

    • Beswick v Beswick

    • Combe v Combe

    • Thomas v Thomas

    • Daniels v Daniels

    Correct Answer
    A. Beswick v Beswick
    Explanation
    In the case of Beswick v Beswick, the court held that a person who is not a party to a contract but has a special relationship with one of the parties can bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract. In this case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Beswick, was the widow and executor of her deceased husband's estate. She sought to enforce a contract in which her husband's nephew agreed to pay her a weekly sum of money in exchange for the transfer of his business. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Beswick, recognizing her special relationship as the executor and allowing her to sue to enforce the contract.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    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 Selfridges
    Explanation
    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:

  • 9. 

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

    • Stilk v Myriek

    • Hartley v Ponsonby

    • The Moorcock

    • Jarvis v Swan Tours

    Correct Answer
    A. Jarvis v Swan Tours
    Explanation
    In Jarvis v Swan Tours, the court held that while assessing damages, non-financial losses can be taken into consideration. This case established that damages can be awarded not only for financial losses but also for emotional distress, inconvenience, and other non-monetary harms suffered by the plaintiff. This ruling expanded the scope of damages and recognized the importance of compensating individuals for non-financial losses caused by the defendant's actions.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    Goods in a supermarket are invitations.

    • Powell v Lee

    • Pharmaseutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist South Western

    • Thomas v Thomas

    • Pender v Lushington

    Correct Answer
    A. Pharmaseutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist South Western
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "Pharmaseutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist South Western." This case is relevant to the statement that "Goods in a supermarket are invitations." In this case, the court held that the display of goods on shelves in a self-service store is an invitation to customers to make an offer to purchase, rather than an offer itself. This means that when a customer selects an item and brings it to the cashier, they are making an offer to purchase, and the store can choose to accept or reject that offer.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

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

    • Harris v Nickerson

    • Patridge v Crittenden

    • Williams V Roffey

    • Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

    Correct Answer
    A. Shanklin Pier v Detel Products
    Explanation
    Shanklin Pier v Detel Products is the correct answer because it is a case that established the concept of collateral contracts. In this case, the court held that an injured party can sue even though the other party is not a party to the main contract. This means that if a collateral contract exists, the injured party can seek legal remedies against the party who made the collateral promise, even if they are not directly involved in the main contract.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    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 Wrench
    Explanation
    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:

  • 13. 

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

    • Re New British Iron Company

    • Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine

    • Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    Correct Answer
    A. Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine
    Explanation
    The case of Ewing v Butter Cup Margarine is an example of the tort of passing off because both the plaintiff's business, Ewing, and the defendant's business, Butter Cup Margarine, had similar names and were involved in a similar line of business. This similarity in name and business created a likelihood of confusion among consumers, leading to the potential for the defendant to benefit from the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. Therefore, the court found that the defendant had committed the tort of passing off.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

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

    • ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn

    • Latimer v AEC

    • JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom

    • Thomas v Thomas

    Correct Answer(s)
    A. ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn
    A. JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom
    Explanation
    The correct answer is ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn and JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom. In both of these cases, the auditors were found to be negligent in their representation, leading to negative outcomes.

    Rate this question:

  • 15. 

    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 McLean
    Explanation
    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:

  • 16. 

    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 Facey
    Explanation
    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:

  • 17. 

    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.

    • Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

    • C & P Haulage v Middleton

    Correct Answer
    A. Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions
    Explanation
    The case of Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions is relevant to the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services in employment law. In this case, the court applied the economic reality test to determine the nature of the relationship between the parties involved. The economic reality test examines factors such as control, integration, and mutuality of obligation to determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. This case is significant in establishing the criteria for distinguishing between the two types of contracts in employment law.

    Rate this question:

  • 18. 

    Mail catelogues are invitations only.

    • Grainger v Gough

    • Williams V Carwardine

    • R v Clark

    • Carlill v Carbolic Smake Ball Company

    Correct Answer
    A. Grainger v Gough
  • 19. 

    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 Association
    Explanation
    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:

  • 20. 

    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 Sheen
    Explanation
    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:

  • 21. 

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

    • Thomas v Thomas

    • Anglia TV v Reed

    • Williams v Roffey

    • Hartley v Ponsonby

    Correct Answer
    A. Anglia TV v Reed
    Explanation
    In the case of Anglia TV v Reed, the court ruled that when measuring damages, speculative loss should not be taken into account. This means that the court will not consider potential or hypothetical losses that are uncertain or based on speculation. Instead, they will focus on actual and proven losses that can be quantified and supported by evidence. This approach ensures that damages are awarded based on concrete and verifiable losses, rather than on speculative or uncertain projections.

    Rate this question:

  • 22. 

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

    • Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • Williams v Carwardine

    • R v Clark

    • Mersey Docks v Coggins

    Correct Answer
    A. Williams v Carwardine
    Explanation
    The question is asking for a case that supports the statement "Motivation in case of reward is irrelevant; knowledge of the existence of reward is enough." Out of the given options, Williams v Carwardine is the most relevant case. In this case, the court held that the offer of a reward can be accepted by anyone who has knowledge of the reward, regardless of their motivation. This means that even if the person is not motivated by the reward, they can still claim it as long as they have knowledge of its existence.

    Rate this question:

  • 23. 

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

    • Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • Powell v Lee

    • Gunthing v Lynn

    • R v Clark

    Correct Answer
    A. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
    Explanation
    In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the court held that an offer can be made to the world at large, meaning that it can be accepted by anyone who meets the specified conditions. In this case, the company had advertised that they would pay a reward to anyone who used their product as directed and still contracted influenza. Mrs. Carlill accepted the offer by purchasing and using the product, and when she became ill, she sued for the reward. The court ruled in her favor, stating that the offer was clear and unambiguous, and that acceptance could be communicated through performance of the specified conditions. Therefore, communication of acceptance could be waived in this case.

    Rate this question:

  • 24. 

    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?

    • Hadley v Baxendale

    • Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd

    • Express Newspapers v Silverstone

    • Hillas v Arcos

    Correct Answer
    A. Hadley v Baxendale
    Explanation
    In the case of Hadley v Baxendale, the court established the principle of remoteness of damages. According to this principle, damages can only be awarded if they were reasonably foreseeable by an ordinary person at the time the contract was made. The court further clarified that the damages should either arise naturally from the breach or be within the contemplation of both parties at the time of making the contract. This case set the standard for determining the extent of damages that can be claimed in a breach of contract situation.

    Rate this question:

  • 25. 

    Revocation must be communicated to the offeree.

    • Ward v Byham

    • Hartly v Ponsonby

    • Thomas v Thomas

    • Byne v Van Tienhoven

    Correct Answer
    A. Byne v Van Tienhoven
    Explanation
    In Byne v Van Tienhoven, the court held that revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree in order for it to be effective. This means that the offeror cannot simply change their mind about the offer without informing the offeree. The case establishes the principle that communication of revocation is necessary to terminate an offer, and without such communication, the offer remains open and can be accepted by the offeree. Therefore, Byne v Van Tienhoven is the correct answer because it supports the statement that revocation must be communicated to the offeree.

    Rate this question:

  • 26. 

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

    • Ewing v Buttercup Margarine

    • Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd

    • Bushell v Faith

    Correct Answer
    A. Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Berry and Stewart v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd. This case is relevant because it establishes that directors have the power to refuse share transfers without providing reasons. However, they must exercise this right in good faith, meaning they should have a valid and legitimate reason for refusing the transfer.

    Rate this question:

  • 27. 

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

    • Williams v Roffey

    • Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • Lynn v Bamber

    Correct Answer
    A. Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne
    Explanation
    The case of Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne is relevant to the concept of lifting the veil of incorporation. In this case, the court ruled that the veil of incorporation could be lifted when a company was formed as a sham. The defendant, Horne, had left his former employer, Gilford Motor Company, and set up a new company to compete with them. However, he used his wife's name as the director and shareholder of the new company to try and avoid liability. The court held that this was a clear attempt to evade the legal obligations and responsibilities of his former employment, and therefore lifted the veil of incorporation to hold him personally liable.

    Rate this question:

  • 28. 

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

    • Beswick v Beswick

    • Errington v Errington

    • Powell v Lee

    • Dickinson v Dodds

    Correct Answer
    A. Dickinson v Dodds
    Explanation
    In the case of Dickinson v Dodds, the court held that notice of revocation must be communicated through a reliable third party. This means that the revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree by a trustworthy and credible source in order for it to be valid. This case establishes the principle that mere knowledge of the revocation by the offeree is not sufficient; it must be communicated in a reliable manner.

    Rate this question:

  • 29. 

    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 Brothers
    Explanation
    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:

  • 30. 

    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 Herald
    Explanation
    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:

  • 31. 

    Floating charge is defined in which case?

    • Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    • Re McArdle

    • R v Oll

    • R v Clark

    Correct Answer
    A. Re Yorkshire Woolcombers
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "re Yorkshire Woolcombers" because the concept of a floating charge is defined in this case. The case of re Yorkshire Woolcombers established the legal definition and principles surrounding floating charges, which are a type of security interest that allows a creditor to have a claim over a company's assets that may change in nature or quantity over time. This case is significant in understanding the legal framework and implications of floating charges in insolvency and corporate law.

    Rate this question:

  • 32. 

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

    • Andrews v Singer

    • Ford v Armstrong

    • Evans v Cross

    • Merritt v Merritt

    Correct Answer
    A. Ford v Armstrong
    Explanation
    In Ford v Armstrong, the court ruled that if a contract contains a penalty clause, the court will not enforce liquidated damages. This means that if the damages specified in the contract are deemed excessive or unreasonable, the court has the power to refuse to enforce them. Therefore, if it is determined that the contract in question contains a penalty clause, the court will not allow liquidated damages to be awarded.

    Rate this question:

  • 33. 

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

    • Richley v Fould

    • Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

    • Lazenby Garages v Wright

    Correct Answer
    A. Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa
    Explanation
    In the case of Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa, the court ruled that a proposed alteration of a company's articles of association may still be valid even if it adversely affects only one member. This means that as long as the alteration follows the proper legal procedures and is not unfairly prejudicial to the member, it can be considered valid. This case highlights the importance of following the correct legal processes when making changes to a company's articles of association, even if it may have an adverse impact on certain members.

    Rate this question:

  • 34. 

    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.

    • Re McArdle

    • Harris v Nickerson

    • Stevenson v McLean

    • Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    Correct Answer
    A. Re Fairway Magazines Ltd
    Explanation
    In the case of re Fairway Magazines Ltd, the court held that if a preference was given to a director in creating a fixed charge, the relevant period for challenging the transaction is extended to one year from the date of the transaction. This means that creditors or other parties who may be affected by the preference have a longer period of time to challenge the transaction and potentially have it set aside. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring fairness and equal treatment of all creditors in financial transactions involving directors.

    Rate this question:

  • 35. 

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

    • Balfour v Balfour

    • Merritt v Merritt

    • Spellman v Spellman

    • Beswick v Beswick

    Correct Answer
    A. Merritt v Merritt
    Explanation
    Merritt v Merritt is the correct answer because it is a case that involves a domestic arrangement where a husband and wife are living apart. In this case, the husband and wife had agreed to separate and the wife was to make mortgage payments on the house they owned together. The husband later refused to transfer the house to the wife's name as agreed. The court held that there was an intention to create legal relations in this domestic arrangement, and therefore the wife was entitled to enforce the agreement.

    Rate this question:

  • 36. 

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

    • Parker v Clark

    • R v Clark

    • Clarke v Dunraven

    • Re Tunbridge

    Correct Answer
    A. Parker v Clark
    Explanation
    Parker v Clark is the correct answer because this case is relevant to the topic of "intention to create legal relations, domestic arrangements, other than husband and wife." The other options, R v Clark, Clarke v Dunraven, and re Tunbridge, do not pertain to the specific topic mentioned in the question.

    Rate this question:

  • 37. 

    Intention to create legal relations, commercial arrangements.

    • Grainge v Gough

    • Guthing v Lynn

    • Rose & Frank v Crompton

    • Hutton v Warren

    Correct Answer
    A. Rose & Frank v Crompton
    Explanation
    Rose & Frank v Crompton is the correct answer because this case established the principle that in commercial arrangements, there is a presumption that the parties intend to create legal relations. In this case, the court held that despite the use of "honourable pledge" language in the agreement, the parties intended to be legally bound. This case is often cited as an example of the importance of considering the commercial context and the language used by the parties in determining their intention to create legal relations in commercial agreements.

    Rate this question:

  • 38. 

    Offer terminates in lapse of time.

    • Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori

    • Hyde v Wrench

    • R v Oll

    • The Moorcock

    Correct Answer
    A. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiori
  • 39. 

    Rejection can terminate the offer.   

    • Dickinson v Dodds

    • Stevenson v McLean

    • Hyde v Wrench

    • Byne v Van Tienhoven

    Correct Answer
    A. Hyde v Wrench
    Explanation
    In Hyde v Wrench, the court held that a counteroffer made by the offeree terminates the original offer. This means that if the offeree rejects the initial offer and proposes different terms, the original offer is no longer valid. Therefore, the correct answer suggests that rejection, in the form of a counteroffer, can terminate the offer.

    Rate this question:

  • 40. 

    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.

    • Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas

    • Warner Bros v Nelson

    • Bushell v Faith

    Correct Answer
    A. Warner Bros v Nelson
    Explanation
    In Warner Bros v Nelson, the court granted an injunction to prevent breach of a negative term of a contract, even though the positive part was not specifically enforceable. This means that even if one part of a contract cannot be enforced, such as a positive obligation, the court can still grant an injunction to prevent a breach of a negative term, which is a term that prohibits a party from doing something. This case highlights the court's willingness to protect parties from breaching negative terms, even if other parts of the contract are not enforceable.

    Rate this question:

  • 41. 

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

    • Patridge v Crittenden

    • Hyde v Wrench

    • Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    • Grainger v Gough

    Correct Answer
    A. Hyde v Wrench
    Explanation
    In the case of Hyde v Wrench, the court held that a counter-offer made by the offeree terminates the original offer. Therefore, for an offer to be valid and enforceable, it must still be open and available for acceptance at the time the offeree accepts it. This means that if the offer has expired or been revoked before acceptance, it cannot be legally binding.

    Rate this question:

  • 42. 

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

    • Re Brazillian Rubber Plantation & States

    • Re McArdle

    • Re Fairway Magazines Ltd

    • Re Yorkshire Woolcombers

    Correct Answer
    A. Re Brazillian Rubber Plantation & States
    Explanation
    Directors may escape liability if they can demonstrate to the court that they have taken all necessary measures to minimize the potential loss for the creditors. This means that if the directors of the Brazillian Rubber Plantation & States can prove that they have done everything possible to mitigate the creditors' loss, they may not be held personally liable for any damages incurred.

    Rate this question:

  • 43. 

    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 Barton
    Explanation
    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:

  • 44. 

    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 Errington
    Explanation
    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:

  • 45. 

    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 Lee
    Explanation
    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:

  • 46. 

    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 Company
    Explanation
    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:

  • 47. 

    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 Co
    Explanation
    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:

  • 48. 

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

    • Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • Pender v Lushington

    • Jones v Padavatton

    • Gibson v Barton

    Correct Answer
    A. Jones v Padavatton
    Explanation
    Jones v Padavatton is the correct answer because it is a relevant case that involves the intention to create legal relations and domestic arrangements. In this case, the court held that there was no intention to create legal relations between a mother and her daughter regarding a property agreement. This case is significant because it establishes that not all domestic arrangements or family relationships are legally binding contracts.

    Rate this question:

  • 49. 

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

    • Poussard v Spiers & Pond

    • Bettini v Gye

    • The Hansa Nord

    • Lynn v Bamber

    Correct Answer
    A. Bettini v Gye
    Explanation
    In Bettini v Gye, the court treated an innominate term as a warranty. The case involved a singer who was contracted to perform at the defendant's theater for a specific period. However, the singer fell ill and was unable to perform for a few days. The defendant then replaced the singer with another performer and refused to pay the original singer for the remaining days. The court held that the singer's ability to perform was a condition of the contract, and the defendant's failure to allow her to perform amounted to a breach of warranty. Therefore, the innominate term was treated as a warranty in this case.

    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, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • May 10, 2011
    Quiz Created by
    Farzana_hussain

Recent Quizzes

Unveiling History: The German-Soviet Frontier Treaty Quiz Unveiling History: The German-Soviet Frontier Treaty Quiz
World Day for International Justice Quiz World Day for International Justice Quiz
Procedural Law and Substantive Law Quiz Procedural Law and Substantive Law Quiz
How Well Do You Know Procedural Justice? How Well Do You Know Procedural Justice?
How Much Do You Know About Extradition? How Much Do You Know About Extradition?
What Type of Law Student Are You? What Type of Law Student Are You?
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.