Contract Law Presumptions Explained

Summary

In English contract law, intention to create legal relations is presumed in commercial agreements, not typically in social or familial contexts. An invitation to treat invites offers, not an offer itself. Promissory estoppel can prevent a party from reneging on a promise if the promisee relied on it, but it cannot create new legal rights. Consideration is essential for enforceability, as seen in cases like Balfour v Balfour and Combe v Combe. Online contracts are governed by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. In unilateral contracts, acceptance is through performance, not communication.

Full Conversation

An invitation to treat: Question 3Select one: a. is an alternative way of describing an offer b. invites offers or opens negotiation with a view to forming a contract c. is an essential part of the formation of a legally binding contract
The correct answer to the question "An invitation to treat" is:
b. invites offers or opens negotiation with a view to forming a contract.
An invitation to treat is not an offer, but an indication that a person is prepared to negotiate a contract.
Do you have any other questions regarding contract law?
‘Words are to be interpreted as they were reasonably understood by the man to whom they were spoken, not as they were understood by the man who spoke them’ Spencer (*). The above quote outlines: Question 2Select one: a. what constitutes an offer b. the principle of objective intention c. the principle of subjective intention d. the importance of having a written contract instead of a verbal one
The correct answer to the question about the quote from Spencer (*) is:
b. the principle of objective intention
This principle indicates that the interpretation of words in a contract should be based on how a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would have understood them, rather than the subjective intention of the person who spoke them.
Do you have any other questions regarding contract law?
Which of the following examples is not a legally enforceable agreement (contract)? Question 4Select one: a. D is ordered to pay compensation to Y for negligently harming Y in a car accident b. B buys a chocolate bar from a convenience store c. A orders a book from Amazon d. C signs a tenancy agreement
The correct answer is:
a. D is ordered to pay compensation to Y for negligently harming Y in a car accident
This is because it is a court order, not a contract. The other options represent agreements where there is an intention to create legal relations and consideration.
Do you have any other questions about contracts or any other legal matter?
in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (*), the court established the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This case involved the promise to reduce rent during World War II. What did the court hold? (Select the most accurate answer) Question 6Select one: a. Promissory estoppel only applies to written contracts. b. Promissory estoppel could be applied even if there was no reliance. c. Promissory estoppel could be applied due to the promise and promisee's reliance on the promise. d. Promissory estoppel cannot be used as a ‘sword’.
The correct answer is:
c. Promissory estoppel could be applied due to the promise and promisee's reliance on the promise.
Promissory estoppel can be invoked when a promise is made, and the promisee has relied on that promise to their detriment.
Do you have any more questions about contract law or any other legal matter?
What does it mean that promissory estoppel can be ‘used as a shield, not a sword’? Question 8Select one: a. promissory estoppel cannot establish a cause of action where none existed before; it only prevents a party from insisting on his legal rights b. promissory estoppel can only be used to enforce promises of extra payment c. promissory estoppel can be used as a cause of action to enforce rights
The correct answer to the question "What does it mean that promissory estoppel can be ‘used as a shield, not a sword’?" is:
a. promissory estoppel cannot establish a cause of action where none existed before; it only prevents a party from insisting on his legal rights.
This means that promissory estoppel can only be used defensively to prevent a party from going back on a promise when it would be unjust to allow them to do so, rather than to create new legal rights.
Do you have any other questions regarding contract law?
In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (*), the court established the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This case involved the promise to reduce rent during World War II. What did the court hold? (Select the most accurate answer) Question 6Select one: a. Promissory estoppel only applies to written contracts. b. Promissory estoppel could be applied even if there was no reliance. c. Promissory estoppel could be applied due to the promise and promisee's reliance on the promise. d. Promissory estoppel cannot be used as a ‘sword’.
The most accurate answer is:
c. Promissory estoppel could be applied due to the promise and promisee's reliance on the promise.
In the case of Balfour v Balfour (*), the court ruled that: Question 10Select one: a. The agreement between husband and wife lacked the intention to create legal relations. b. The agreement was void for uncertainty. c. The agreement between husband and wife was a legally binding contract. d. The agreement was unenforceable due to duress.
The correct answer is:
a. The agreement between husband and wife lacked the intention to create legal relations.
This case established that agreements between spouses are generally not intended to be legally binding. Do you have any other questions about contract law?
In a unilateral contract the following must be adhered to in order to meet valid acceptance: Question 11Select one: a. the offeree must communicate acceptance by the method stipulated b. if a person makes an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, they waive the need for acceptance to be communicated. c. the offeree must communicate acceptance in writing
In a unilateral contract, valid acceptance typically requires:
- The offeree must perform the act specified in the offer.
- Acceptance does not usually need to be communicated unless the offer explicitly requires it.
Regarding your options, b. if a person makes an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, they waive the need for acceptance to be communicated is generally correct.
Do you have any more questions related to contract law?
In the Court of Appeal in Combe v Combe (*), the husband’s promise of money to his ex-wife was held not to be binding under the principle of promissory estoppel. Was this because Question 12Select one: a. the wife had not changed her position in reliance on the promise b. the wife could not bind herself not to apply to the court for maintenance c. the principle of promissory estoppel could not be used to create a cause of action where none existed before
The correct answer is:
c. the principle of promissory estoppel could not be used to create a cause of action where none existed before.
Promissory estoppel is used as a defence, not to create new legal rights.
Do you have any other questions about contract law?
When making a contract over the internet (via websites, by email), the relevant rules are set out in: Question 13Select one: a. the Companies Act (Electronic Transactions) Amendments * b. the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations * c. the EU Contract (Internet and Email Communication) Regulations *
The relevant rules for making a contract over the internet in England are set out in:
- b. the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations *
This directive provides the legal framework for electronic contracts and online services in the UK.
Do you need any further information on this topic?
Sam tells his ex-wife Laura that he will give her £*,* as maintenance. Relying on this promise, Laura makes significant financial commitments. Can Laura enforce Sam's promise in English contract law? Select the most accurate answer. Question 14Select one: a. Yes, because although there is no consideration, Laura can use promissory estoppel to prevent Sam from going back on his promise. b. No, because there is no consideration and Laura cannot use promissory estoppel. c. Yes, because it is a promise of maintenance. d. No, because Laura's reliance on Sam's promise was not foreseeable.
The most accurate answer in this scenario is:
a. Yes, because although there is no consideration, Laura can use promissory estoppel to prevent Sam from going back on his promise.
Promissory estoppel can be invoked if Laura relied on Sam's promise to her detriment.
Do you have any other questions related to contract law?
Tom promises to pay Sarah £* for helping him move to a new apartment. After Sarah helps Tom move, he refuses to pay the £*. Can Sarah enforce Tom's promise in English contract law? Select the most accurate answer. Question 18Select one: a. Yes, because Sarah can rely on promissory estoppel to enforce this promise. b. Yes, because Sarah provided consideration for Tom’s promise. c. No, because Sarah’s consideration is inadequate for the promise of £*. d. No, because there is no consideration provided by Sarah.
Sarah can enforce Tom's promise in English contract law because:
- b. Yes, because Sarah provided consideration for Tom’s promise.
Her act of helping Tom move constitutes consideration, making the agreement enforceable.
Do you have any other questions related to contract law?
Martina sent an email at 10AM to the Contract Law students at the University of Westgate which stated the following - 'O'Sullivan Contract Law 10th edition for sale, price £*. The first student responding by email willing to pay £* will get this good quality book'. John sent an email at *.20AM the same day saying he would pay £*. After sending the email Martina had gone for a coffee and on her way had seen Vilson who she told about the book, and he said he would give her the £*, so Martina gave him the book. Is John entitled to the book? Question 19Select one: a. No - because Martina’s email was an invitation to treat b. No- because the postal rule applies c. Yes – Martina’s email was an offer, which he accepted
In this scenario, the correct answer is:
c. Yes – Martina’s email was an offer, which he accepted.
Martina's email can be considered an offer, and John accepted this offer by responding with an email agreeing to pay the stated price. Since acceptance was communicated within a reasonable time and in the manner specified, John would generally be entitled to the book. However, there could be additional considerations such as whether Vilson's direct acceptance and payment might affect this situation. Consulting a lawyer for a more detailed analysis would be advisable.
Do you have any other questions regarding contract law?
Gary had installed a new kitchen for his ex-wife Dana. When Dana bought a new car, she promised to give Gary her old car when the new one was delivered. Gary accepted, but Dana later changed her mind and decided to sell the car instead. Can Gary enforce Dana's promise of the car? Identify the most accurate answer. Question 20Select one: a. Yes, because Gary can rely on promissory estoppel to enforce this promise if he demonstrates detrimental reliance. b. No, because the promise was not in writing. c. Yes, because Gary provided consideration. d. No, because Gary has not satisfied the rules of consideration
The most accurate answer is:
d. No, because Gary has not satisfied the rules of consideration.
In English contract law, for a promise to be enforceable, there must be consideration from both parties. Since Gary did not provide any new consideration for Dana's promise of the car, it is likely that the promise is not legally enforceable.