GDL Contract Law Exam | University of Law Contract Law Practice Questions & Study Guide
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)
, GDL Contract Law Exam | University of Law Contract Law Practice Questions & Study Guide
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, 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
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)
, GDL Contract Law Exam | University of Law Contract Law Practice Questions & Study Guide
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, 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
