Contract Law Decision Insights

Summary

The decision in Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd established that a contract with a price-fixing mechanism is not void for uncertainty. Consideration must move from the promisee, not a third party. A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance begins. In Great Peace Shipping Ltd, a common initial mistake did not void the contract. Terms implied in law are based on necessity, not party intention. An advertisement for a reward is a unilateral offer, binding upon successful prosecution. In Kleinwort Benson Ltd, a letter of comfort was not binding due to lack of intention to create legal relations. Vagueness in inessential contract terms can be severed to enforce the rest of the contract.

Full Conversation

A consideration for a promise must move from someone other than the promisor, although not necessarily from the party enforcing the promise. Question 2Select one: True False
False. In contract law, for a promise to be enforceable, the consideration must move from the promisee, not from a third party.
Which one of the following statements relating to revocation of a unilateral offer is most likely to be true? Question 3Select one: a. The offeror has a general implied obligation not to revoke the unilateral offer until one year has passed. b. The offeror is entitled to revoke the unilateral offer at any time before completion of the performance of the act requested in the offer. c. The offeror loses the power to revoke the unilateral offer once the offeror has notice that an offeree has commenced performance of the act requested in the offer. d. The offeror loses the power to revoke the unilateral offer once they have publicised the offer.
The correct answer is:
c. The offeror loses the power to revoke the unilateral offer once the offeror has notice that an offeree has commenced performance of the act requested in the offer.
In which one of the following cases was a common initial mistake found by the court but, the court held that the contract was not voided and the parties still had to perform their obligations? Question 4Select one: a. Hartog v Colin And Shields [*] * All ER * b. Shogun Finance Ltd. v Hudson [*] UKHL * c. Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [*] EWCA Civ *, [*] QB *. d. Glasbrook Bros. v Glamorgan C.C.l [*] AC *
Case Rating: *
The answer to the question is:
c. Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [*] EWCA Civ *, [*] QB *.
In this case, the court found that there was a common initial mistake regarding the ships' proximity to each other. However, the contract was not voided, and the parties were still required to perform their obligations.
Terms implied in law do not depend on any intention imputed to the parties. It suffices if the term is a reasonable one according to the particular circumstances of the contract in question. Question 5Select one: True False
Case Rating: *
The statement "Terms implied in law do not depend on any intention imputed to the parties. It suffices if the term is a reasonable one according to the particular circumstances of the contract in question." is True. This is because terms implied in law are based on the necessity of the term within the context of the contract.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
A, the owner of Tyr Supermarket, advertises a 'reward of £* for the first person to supply information if that information leads to the successful prosecution of the criminal mastermind responsible for a series of thefts from Tyr Supermarket'. B supplies the information from which the criminal is successfully arrested and prosecuted. B thereupon claims the reward. Which one of the following statements is true? Question 6Select one: a. The advertisement is a unilateral offer under which A is bound to pay B £* only when the information supplied by B finally leads to the successful prosecution of the criminal. b. The advertisement is only an invitation to treat but B can claim the reward once the criminal has been successfully prosecuted. c. The advertisement is a unilateral offer under which A is bound to pay B £* when B supplies the information. d. The advertisement is only an invitation to treat and therefore B has no right to the reward.
Case Rating: *
Question: Are you looking for confirmation on the correct answer to this question regarding the reward for the information leading to the criminal's prosecution?
yes
Case Rating: *
The correct answer to the question regarding the reward for information leading to the criminal's prosecution is:
a. The advertisement is a unilateral offer under which A is bound to pay B £* only when the information supplied by B finally leads to the successful prosecution of the criminal.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
In Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp [*] * WLR, a 'letter of comfort' was held not to be binding on the ground that the presumption of an intention to create legal relations was rebutted by the wording of the letter. Question 7Select one: True False
Case Rating: *
True. In Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp [*] * WLR, the court held that a 'letter of comfort' was not binding because the wording of the letter rebutted the presumption of an intention to create legal relations.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Where an inessential term of the contract suffers from vagueness, it may be possible to sever that term and enforce the rest of the contract. Question 8Select one: True False
Case Rating: *
The statement "where an inessential term of the contract suffers from vagueness, it may be possible to sever that term and enforce the rest of the contract" is generally considered True. Courts often strive to uphold the validity of contracts by severing vague or inessential terms while enforcing the remaining provisions.
Do you have any other legal queries or need further clarification on this topic?
A wins a prize, giving her free entry to the next England v France rugby international, and decides to travel to London by coach to watch the match. She purchases a day return coach ticket from B Ltd. Unfortunately, the rugby match is cancelled owing to a freak storm. A no longer needs her coach ticket and therefore claims that her contract with B Ltd has been frustrated. Which one of the following statements most accurately summarises the legal position between A and B Ltd? Question 10Select one: a. The contract has not been frustrated because the rugby match does not form the common purpose of the parties. b. The contract has been frustrated because A's sole purpose of entering the contract, which is to watch the rugby match, has been destroyed. c. The contract has not been frustrated because A will gain a valuable benefit from travelling to London. d. The contract has been frustrated on grounds of impossibility because there is no rugby match for A to attend.
Case Rating: *
The most accurate summary of the legal position is:
a. The contract has not been frustrated because the rugby match does not form the common purpose of the parties.
Would you like more information or have any other legal questions?