Chapter 2 Self-test questions

. What justifies the general objective test of intention in contract law?

One contracting party could not be certain that the other party has a clear understanding of the terms of the contract.

The parties' subjective intentions may have changed from the time they negotiated the contract to the time the contract was entered into.

Each party would find it difficult to ascertain the subjective intention of the other party in the event of a dispute.

All of the options given are correct.

. A offers for sale a "working handheld electronic toy, ready to use straight away" at an auction. B places the highest bid. A delivers the electronic toy without batteries. B sues for breach of contract since there are no batteries. What is the likely outcome?

The contract is invalid as A and B had different subjective intentions as to the subject of the contract.

A is in breach of the contract by not providing batteries.

B must pay more for the batteries on delivery of the electronic toy.

None of the options given is correct.

. A offers to sell B his personalised boomerang for '$50'. Such boomerangs are normally worth $3000. A believes he is giving B a small friendly discount, as he has confused his £s and $s and £1 is worth $50. B knows that A has mixed up his currencies when he made the offer. Nevertheless, B gives A $50. What is the likely outcome?

A is under a contractual duty to provide B with the boomerang.

B must pay the remaining $2995 for the value of the boomerang.

There is no contract between A and B.

None of the options given is correct.

. A offers to sell B his personalised boomerang for '$500'. Such boomerangs are normally worth $3000 but A thinks that personalised boomerangs are worth much less. B also makes the same mistake and pays $500 for the boomerang nonetheless. What is the likely outcome?

A is under a contractual duty to provide B with the boomerang.

B must pay the remaining $2500 for the value of the boomerang.

There is no contract between A and B.

None of the options given is correct.

. The Grand Express train is transporting two carriages of goods belonging to A. One carriage contains 'ready salted' flavour crisps. The other carriage contains 'cheese and onion' flavour crisps. B contracts with A to buy a carriage load of crisps. The second carriage carrying cheese and onion crisps detaches on the track and does not arrive in time. What is the outcome of the contract?

There was no contract as it was not clear which carriage of crisps was the subject of the contract.

B must accept the ready salted crisps.

B does not receive his crisps as he contracted for the second carriage and he is entitled to damages from A.

None of the options given is correct.

. The Grand Express train is transporting two carriages of goods belonging to A. One carriage contains 'ready salted' flavour crisps. The other carriage contains 'cheese and onion' flavour crisps. A offers to sell to B 'a carriage of crisps on the Grand Express train'. B thinks A refers to the 'cheese and onion' carriage and accepts. In fact, A is offering the 'ready salted' crisps. What is the outcome of the contract?

There was no contract as it was not clear which carriage of crisps was the subject of the contract.

B must accept the ready salted crisps.

A must sell the cheese and onion crisps.

None of the options given is correct.

. In what situations might there be an exception to the rule in L'Estrange v Graucob that a party who signs a written document is bound by it, even if he did not read the terms?

The author of the contract has fraudulently misled the other contracting party as to the terms of the contract.

The party signing the contract is a consumer and the terms are unfair on him.

The document does not contain the contract.

All of the options given are correct.

. A contracts with B for B to be his chauffeur. The terms of the contract are understood to be set out in a document which A had written up. Neither A or B signs the document, but both understand the document to reflect the contract to which they are parties. In what situation may the court decide that the document does not fully represent the contract?

In all situations as the document has not been signed.

Where A tries to enforce the term that in the event of A's car not working B must purchase A a brand new car at his own expense.

Where B tries to enforce the term that provides him with a higher rate of pay during public holidays.

None of the options given is correct.

. What justifies the general objective test of intention in contract law?

One contracting party could not be certain that the other party has a clear understanding of the terms of the contract.

The parties' subjective intentions may have changed from the time they negotiated the contract to the time the contract was entered into.

Each party would find it difficult to ascertain the subjective intention of the other party in the event of a dispute.

All of the options given are correct.

. A offers for sale a "working handheld electronic toy, ready to use straight away" at an auction. B places the highest bid. A delivers the electronic toy without batteries. B sues for breach of contract since there are no batteries. What is the likely outcome?

The contract is invalid as A and B had different subjective intentions as to the subject of the contract.

A is in breach of the contract by not providing batteries.

B must pay more for the batteries on delivery of the electronic toy.

None of the options given is correct.

. A offers to sell B his personalised boomerang for '$50'. Such boomerangs are normally worth $3000. A believes he is giving B a small friendly discount, as he has confused his £s and $s and £1 is worth $50. B knows that A has mixed up his currencies when he made the offer. Nevertheless, B gives A $50. What is the likely outcome?

A is under a contractual duty to provide B with the boomerang.

B must pay the remaining $2995 for the value of the boomerang.

There is no contract between A and B.

None of the options given is correct.

. A offers to sell B his personalised boomerang for '$500'. Such boomerangs are normally worth $3000 but A thinks that personalised boomerangs are worth much less. B also makes the same mistake and pays $500 for the boomerang nonetheless. What is the likely outcome?

A is under a contractual duty to provide B with the boomerang.

B must pay the remaining $2500 for the value of the boomerang.

There is no contract between A and B.

None of the options given is correct.

. The Grand Express train is transporting two carriages of goods belonging to A. One carriage contains 'ready salted' flavour crisps. The other carriage contains 'cheese and onion' flavour crisps. B contracts with A to buy a carriage load of crisps. The second carriage carrying cheese and onion crisps detaches on the track and does not arrive in time. What is the outcome of the contract?

There was no contract as it was not clear which carriage of crisps was the subject of the contract.

B must accept the ready salted crisps.

B does not receive his crisps as he contracted for the second carriage and he is entitled to damages from A.

None of the options given is correct.

. The Grand Express train is transporting two carriages of goods belonging to A. One carriage contains 'ready salted' flavour crisps. The other carriage contains 'cheese and onion' flavour crisps. A offers to sell to B 'a carriage of crisps on the Grand Express train'. B thinks A refers to the 'cheese and onion' carriage and accepts. In fact, A is offering the 'ready salted' crisps. What is the outcome of the contract?

There was no contract as it was not clear which carriage of crisps was the subject of the contract.

B must accept the ready salted crisps.

A must sell the cheese and onion crisps.

None of the options given is correct.

. In what situations might there be an exception to the rule in L'Estrange v Graucob that a party who signs a written document is bound by it, even if he did not read the terms?

The author of the contract has fraudulently misled the other contracting party as to the terms of the contract.

The party signing the contract is a consumer and the terms are unfair on him.

The document does not contain the contract.

All of the options given are correct.

. A contracts with B for B to be his chauffeur. The terms of the contract are understood to be set out in a document which A had written up. Neither A or B signs the document, but both understand the document to reflect the contract to which they are parties. In what situation may the court decide that the document does not fully represent the contract?

In all situations as the document has not been signed.

Where A tries to enforce the term that in the event of A's car not working B must purchase A a brand new car at his own expense.

Where B tries to enforce the term that provides him with a higher rate of pay during public holidays.

None of the options given is correct.

Chapter 2 Self-test questions

Quiz Content