©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Uni of Law GDL Contract Exam Questions
And Answers (Guaranteed A+)
Doctrine of Complete Performance - Answer✔Cutter v Powell - failure to fully complete is a
rupudiatory breach. Exceptions: substantial performance, divisible contracts, voluntary
acceptance of part performance, wrongful prevention
Wrongful Prevention of Performance - Answer✔The party wrongfully prevented may bring a
claim for damages (Robinson v Harman) or for quantum meruit (Planché v Colburn)
Voluntary Acceptance of Part Performance - Answer✔The party partially performing may claim
quantum meruit for the goods supplied/work done (Sumpter v Hedges)
Substantial Performance - Answer✔The party substantially performing may claim full contract
price less amount required to right defects (Hoenig v Isaacs). If defects are sizable, cannot be
substantial performance (Bolton v Mahadeva)
Offer - Answer✔A definite promise to be bound by specified terms. The step beyond "invitation
to treat" - Fisher v Bell, Boots. Offers can be unilateral (ie to the world at large - Carbolic Smoke
Ball)
Contract Formation at Auctions - Answer✔Bids are offers, and the hammer coming down is
acceptance - unless the lot is without reserve, in which case unilateral (collateral) contract with
auctioneer (Barry v Davies)
Termination of Offer - Answer✔Revocation - at any time before acceptance (Routledge v
Grant); must be communicated by reliable third party (Dickinson v Dodds; nb office/telex
exception The Brimnes)
Acceptance - Answer✔A complete and unqualified acceptance of all the terms of the offer. Not a
counter offer, which destroys original offer (Hyde v Wrench); nor a request for further info
(Stevenson Jacques v McLean's). Must be communicated (Entores) by offeree or agent (Powell)
Battle of the Forms - Answer✔Butler Machine Tools - final form is the accepted state of terms
Postal Rule - Answer✔Adams v Lindsell (1818); acceptance may be complete on posting if
reasonable, properly sent, and post was not excluded (implicitly or explicitly) by offeror
(Holwell)
Intent to Create Legal Relations - Answer✔Rebuttable presumption that no intent to legal
relations if domestic arrangement (Balfour v Balfour; rebutted in Merritt v Merritt). Equally,
1|Page
, ©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
rebuttable presumption that every intent to create legal relations in commercial settings (Edwards
v Skyways; rebutted in Crompton Bros)
Upward Variation of Contract - Answer✔Stilk v Myrick - if A is agreeing to pay more and B is
only completing obligations, B has not provided good consideration for A's promise. Hartley v
Ponsonby - however, if B is going above and beyond his obligations, this will be consideration.
Roffey (Glidewell principles) - a contract for goods and/or services, where A doubts B will
complete, and therefore B promises A extra payment. B gains a benefit/obviates disbenefit.
There is no duress/fraud. This will be valid.
Downward Variation of Contract - Answer✔Foakes v Beer - part payment is not good
consideration. Pinnell's Case - paying early or in kind may amount to good consideration.
Promissory Estoppel - Answer✔High Trees - A makes a promise to waive legal right. B acts in
reliance (El Nasr). This is a defense, not a cause for action. It must be inequitable for A to go
back on his promise.
Past Consideration - Answer✔Past consideration is not good consideration (Roscorla) - unless
the act was done at the promisor's request (Lampleigh), there was an understanding from the
outset of payment (Casey's Patents), or the promise would have been enforceable if promised in
advance.
Types of Terms - Answer✔Express (agreed explicitly by parties) or implied (by local
custom/trade usage, by previous course of dealings, by presumed intent, by contracts of common
occurrence, by statute). Condition (breach is repudiatary), warranty (breach is non-repudiatary),
or innomimate (remedy depends on extent of breach)
Incorporation of Exemption Clauses - Answer✔By signature - L'Estrange: C must have signed a
legible, contractual document - which is accurate (Curtis). By notice - document must be
contractual (Chapleton) and before finalisation (Interfoto). Must have had reasonable steps to
bring it to B's notice (Parker, Olley - position, prominence, type and nature). Must take more
steps if unusual/onerous (Spurling, Thornton). By previous course of dealings - regular and
frequent (Spurling, Kendall). Not infrequent (Hollin) nor inconsistent (McCutcheon). Also note
reasonableness following UCTA
Measures of Damages - Answer✔Ideally aimed to put C in place they would have been if
contract had been properly performed - Robinson v Hardwood (expectation loss). Can also be for
unjust enrichment (Blake) or reliance loss (Anglia). Generally no damages for disappointment
unless amenity was the point of the contract (Ruxley, Jarvis)
Remoteness - Answer✔Hadley v Baxendale - loss which arises naturally or unnatural loss - must
have been in 'reasonable contemplation of the parties'. Victoria Laundry - ordinary profits are
recoverable, but unusual contracts are not. Parsons suggests the tort test (type of damage, not
extent) but this overruled by The Achilleas, Brown, and The Gubbins - although there can be
exceptions.
Mitigation - Answer✔British Westinghouse - Claimant must take reasonable steps to ensure
losses are kept to a minimum. Any expense incurred can be claimed. Burden of proof to prove no
mitigation on defendant.
2|Page
Uni of Law GDL Contract Exam Questions
And Answers (Guaranteed A+)
Doctrine of Complete Performance - Answer✔Cutter v Powell - failure to fully complete is a
rupudiatory breach. Exceptions: substantial performance, divisible contracts, voluntary
acceptance of part performance, wrongful prevention
Wrongful Prevention of Performance - Answer✔The party wrongfully prevented may bring a
claim for damages (Robinson v Harman) or for quantum meruit (Planché v Colburn)
Voluntary Acceptance of Part Performance - Answer✔The party partially performing may claim
quantum meruit for the goods supplied/work done (Sumpter v Hedges)
Substantial Performance - Answer✔The party substantially performing may claim full contract
price less amount required to right defects (Hoenig v Isaacs). If defects are sizable, cannot be
substantial performance (Bolton v Mahadeva)
Offer - Answer✔A definite promise to be bound by specified terms. The step beyond "invitation
to treat" - Fisher v Bell, Boots. Offers can be unilateral (ie to the world at large - Carbolic Smoke
Ball)
Contract Formation at Auctions - Answer✔Bids are offers, and the hammer coming down is
acceptance - unless the lot is without reserve, in which case unilateral (collateral) contract with
auctioneer (Barry v Davies)
Termination of Offer - Answer✔Revocation - at any time before acceptance (Routledge v
Grant); must be communicated by reliable third party (Dickinson v Dodds; nb office/telex
exception The Brimnes)
Acceptance - Answer✔A complete and unqualified acceptance of all the terms of the offer. Not a
counter offer, which destroys original offer (Hyde v Wrench); nor a request for further info
(Stevenson Jacques v McLean's). Must be communicated (Entores) by offeree or agent (Powell)
Battle of the Forms - Answer✔Butler Machine Tools - final form is the accepted state of terms
Postal Rule - Answer✔Adams v Lindsell (1818); acceptance may be complete on posting if
reasonable, properly sent, and post was not excluded (implicitly or explicitly) by offeror
(Holwell)
Intent to Create Legal Relations - Answer✔Rebuttable presumption that no intent to legal
relations if domestic arrangement (Balfour v Balfour; rebutted in Merritt v Merritt). Equally,
1|Page
, ©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
rebuttable presumption that every intent to create legal relations in commercial settings (Edwards
v Skyways; rebutted in Crompton Bros)
Upward Variation of Contract - Answer✔Stilk v Myrick - if A is agreeing to pay more and B is
only completing obligations, B has not provided good consideration for A's promise. Hartley v
Ponsonby - however, if B is going above and beyond his obligations, this will be consideration.
Roffey (Glidewell principles) - a contract for goods and/or services, where A doubts B will
complete, and therefore B promises A extra payment. B gains a benefit/obviates disbenefit.
There is no duress/fraud. This will be valid.
Downward Variation of Contract - Answer✔Foakes v Beer - part payment is not good
consideration. Pinnell's Case - paying early or in kind may amount to good consideration.
Promissory Estoppel - Answer✔High Trees - A makes a promise to waive legal right. B acts in
reliance (El Nasr). This is a defense, not a cause for action. It must be inequitable for A to go
back on his promise.
Past Consideration - Answer✔Past consideration is not good consideration (Roscorla) - unless
the act was done at the promisor's request (Lampleigh), there was an understanding from the
outset of payment (Casey's Patents), or the promise would have been enforceable if promised in
advance.
Types of Terms - Answer✔Express (agreed explicitly by parties) or implied (by local
custom/trade usage, by previous course of dealings, by presumed intent, by contracts of common
occurrence, by statute). Condition (breach is repudiatary), warranty (breach is non-repudiatary),
or innomimate (remedy depends on extent of breach)
Incorporation of Exemption Clauses - Answer✔By signature - L'Estrange: C must have signed a
legible, contractual document - which is accurate (Curtis). By notice - document must be
contractual (Chapleton) and before finalisation (Interfoto). Must have had reasonable steps to
bring it to B's notice (Parker, Olley - position, prominence, type and nature). Must take more
steps if unusual/onerous (Spurling, Thornton). By previous course of dealings - regular and
frequent (Spurling, Kendall). Not infrequent (Hollin) nor inconsistent (McCutcheon). Also note
reasonableness following UCTA
Measures of Damages - Answer✔Ideally aimed to put C in place they would have been if
contract had been properly performed - Robinson v Hardwood (expectation loss). Can also be for
unjust enrichment (Blake) or reliance loss (Anglia). Generally no damages for disappointment
unless amenity was the point of the contract (Ruxley, Jarvis)
Remoteness - Answer✔Hadley v Baxendale - loss which arises naturally or unnatural loss - must
have been in 'reasonable contemplation of the parties'. Victoria Laundry - ordinary profits are
recoverable, but unusual contracts are not. Parsons suggests the tort test (type of damage, not
extent) but this overruled by The Achilleas, Brown, and The Gubbins - although there can be
exceptions.
Mitigation - Answer✔British Westinghouse - Claimant must take reasonable steps to ensure
losses are kept to a minimum. Any expense incurred can be claimed. Burden of proof to prove no
mitigation on defendant.
2|Page
