Contracts Law. Cases

35 Questions | Total Attempts: 54

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Contract Law Quizzes & Trivia

Contract law test. Waikato university. Know the names of the cases.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    What is the name of this case? A leased property from B. dispute over price. does it include gst. HELD: it is a mistake not to include the words plus gst. A could not know B believed price was gst exclusive. (GST)
    • A. 

      Tristar v dennings

    • B. 

      Dods v coopers creek

    • C. 

      Hadley v baxendale.

  • 2. 
    What case is this? A developed property in Albany for C to lease. Solicitors (B) negligantly drafted lease incorrectly. couldnt lease property - market crashed - sold for much less. Held: B knew of the consequences - liable for damages.  (SOLICITORS)
    • A. 

      Nichols v Jessup

    • B. 

      Joly v Palmer

    • C. 

      McElroy v COmmercial Electronics.

  • 3. 
    A sell grapes to B. only sell if pay before 20th due to financial issues. B assured he would pay by then. Last payment months late. A claimed interest. HELD: damage not too remote as B was told explicitly about need for prompt payment. (GRAPES)
    • A. 

      Dods v coopers creek

    • B. 

      Baker v McKenchnie

    • C. 

      Kaniere Gold Dredging v Dunedin Steel

  • 4. 
    A sell cows to B. Agree to buy 220 cows. clause states B buy less than this if not available. only 206 available. B claimed repudiation. HELD: no evidence lesser number critical, compensation available but not cancellation. (COWS)
    • A. 

      Betham v margetts

    • B. 

      Lifesavers v frigmobile

    • C. 

      Morrows and benjamin v whittington

  • 5. 
    A ran flour mill. shaft broke. sent to greenwich. courier stated 2 days, took more than a week. mill shut and flour had to be brought in for customers. HELD: courier could not know delay caused such loss, too remote. (flour)
    • A. 

      Newmans

    • B. 

      Hadley v BAxendale

    • C. 

      Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge.

  • 6. 
    Case? 2 parties enter a contract to buy/sell land. clearly states 4 sections. elderly women thinks she is selling 3 and the fourth is her own kitchen garden.
    • A. 

      Carlill

    • B. 

      Conlon v ozolins

    • C. 

      Butler Machine Tool Co

  • 7. 
    A entered contract to purchase property and furnishings. $25000. government valuation only $15000. asked if wish to continue with contract after knowledge of government valuation, affirmed through phone call. realised later they couldnt mortgage and tried to cancel in regards to valuation being repudiation. HELD A couldnt cancel as had affirmed. A had repudiated as hadnt settled so B can cancel if wish.
    • A. 

      Paulger v Butland

    • B. 

      Larsen v Dees.

    • C. 

      Jolly v Palmer

  • 8. 
    Entered contract to buy 3 companies. ownership of one not transfered into A's name. cancellation for those which had not transfered, but keep that which did. HELD: title is essential to purchaser - can cancel. S8(3) can cancel unfulfilled parts and keep other parts.
    • A. 

      Wholesale Distributors v Gibbons

    • B. 

      NewMans

    • C. 

      National Bank of NZ v Ram

  • 9. 
    A sought to have access way combined with neighbours driveway. B signed with maiden name. asked to resign with married name, but refused and alledged she have been pressured by A to sign in first place. she was ignorant of property rights and there was a distinct disadvantage. HELD: one-sided agreement, B lost rights to park in her driveway while A gained benefit of access way. agreement was set aside.
    • A. 

      Butler v Countrywide finance

    • B. 

      Nichols v Jessup

    • C. 

      Producer Meats v Thomas

  • 10. 
    A brought house. Found later that the fence  was not the correct boundry line. loss of value through loss of land. HELD: silence can = misrepresentation. No reason for A to think the fence was not the true boundry.
    • A. 

      Savill

    • B. 

      King v Wilkinson.

    • C. 

      Wakelin v Jackson

  • 11. 
    PRINCIPLE: Party must show that they were influenced by the misrepresentation, and the party who made the misrepresentation intended the statement to influence. What case is this principle found in?
    • A. 

      Baker v McKechnie

    • B. 

      Savill

    • C. 

      A-G for england and wales v R

  • 12. 
    PRINCIPLE: Transation to which consent has been obtained by unacceptable means should not be allowed to stanc. burden of Undue Influence is on party alledging it. ceritan relationships give rise to  presumption of influence.
    • A. 

      Fletcher challenge

    • B. 

      Boat Park

    • C. 

      Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge

  • 13. 
    PRINCIPLE: MIsrepresentation must be made by or on behalf of one party. (e.g agents can cause misrep causing liability of those they represent)
    • A. 

      Wakelin v jackson

    • B. 

      Atlantic Baron

    • C. 

      Carwardine

  • 14. 
    PRINCIPLE: Misrepresentation can be made to the public at large.
    • A. 

      Wine Country Credit Union v Rayner

    • B. 

      Baker v McKechnie

    • C. 

      WEL energy group

  • 15. 
    PRINCIPLE: Undue Influence attributed to the bank if A) the dominant party is acting as an agent of the bank. B) bank had actual notice or constructive notice of Undue Influence.
    • A. 

      Selectmove

    • B. 

      Contractors Bonding.

    • C. 

      Burbery Mortgage

  • 16. 
    A brought orchard. told it would fruit in 2 years. on inspection found the orchard had been sprayed with non-selective herbicide. plants, topsoil and irrigation had to be removed. HELD: was not a misrepresentation to not mention the spray.
    • A. 

      Ware v johnson

    • B. 

      Scott v Wise

    • C. 

      Foakes v Beer.

  • 17. 
    A bucket on A's dredge broke. B stated they would replace or give credit for any damage proven to be the manufacturers fault. A claimed for whole dredge. HELD: B only liable for the one faulty bucket.
    • A. 

      Tristar Customs v Denning

    • B. 

      Conlon v Ozolins

    • C. 

      Kairere Gold Dredging v Dunedin Steel

  • 18. 
    Failure to settle so made time of the essence. required payment AND confirmation at 5pm. Payment was made before 5 but confirmation was made at 5:07pm. HELD cancellation at 5:03pm was justified.
    • A. 

      Ware v Johnson

    • B. 

      Larsen v dees

    • C. 

      Contractors Bonding.

  • 19. 
    A to carry chocolate from sydney to brisbane. Chocolate to be kept at 17◦c. B exclustion clause stated the carrier held no liability. HELD: parties are free to determine primary obligations to accept. no obligation to accept liability.
    • A. 

      Wakelin v Jackson

    • B. 

      King v Wilkinson

    • C. 

      Lifesavers v Frigmobile

  • 20. 
    A built large apartment building. sold title of units. market crashed and tenants were unable to make payments. A made time of the essence then cancelled contracts and sued for the losses. HELD: failure to pay after time is made of the essence = repudiation. A entitled to cancel.
    • A. 

      MacINdoe v Mainzeal

    • B. 

      Betham v Margetts

    • C. 

      Conlon v Ozolins

  • 21. 
    A allowed carcesses to be contaminated with amonia. clause stated no liability to wool, meat or skins uninsured and held at owners risk. HELD: not specific enough to remove liability in negligance.
    • A. 

      Larsen v Dees

    • B. 

      McElroy Milne v Commercial Electronics.

    • C. 

      Producer Meats v Thomas.

  • 22. 
    A and his wife guarenteed finance to a company in which A was the director. A's wife has the defence of Undue Influence but A does not.
    • A. 

      O'conner v Hart

    • B. 

      Wilkinson v asb

    • C. 

      Hogan v Commercial Factors

  • 23. 
    A suffered senile dementia at time of selling his farm. acted through hs solicitors. B did not know of A's condition, no had any reason to suspect it. HELD: contract is enforceable as B did not know.
    • A. 

      Wilkinson v ASB

    • B. 

      O'Conner v Hart

    • C. 

      Fletcher Challenge

  • 24. 
    PRINCIPLE: for duress the innocent party must be under threat/pressure. that pressure must be improper and they must be so overborne by this pressure that free will and judgement are displaced. pressure must actually induce party to manifest of assent. musct be sufficently grave to justify assent in that it left the party with no choice. duress renders the agreement voidable by the innocent party. maybe preculded from avoiding the agreement if affirmed after pressure removed.
    • A. 

      Wilkinson v ASB

    • B. 

      Morrow and Benjamin v whittington.

    • C. 

      Pharmacy Care Systems.

  • 25. 
    A guarenteed loan for her husband. she suffers disabling psychiatric condition. Undue Influence assuemed on part of husband. Doctrine of knowledge: actual notice is where a party knows there has been Undue Influence. HELD constructive knowledge on behalf of bank. however repeated insistence that A obtain legal advice put them off thier notice.
    • A. 

      A-g for england and wales v R

    • B. 

      Wilkinson v ASB

    • C. 

      Boots cash chemist.