1 Flashcards
Why were the cases of Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merritt decided differently, even though both situations covered a married couple?
In Balfour v Balfour the couple were not separated.
In Merritt v Merritt they were separated.
In Merritt v Merritt the presumption was rebutted.
What word or words are missing?
Persons who are drunk or under the influence of drugs are generally _____ by any agreement they make as it is presumed by the courts that he/she is aware of his/her actions.
bound
If a contract is for necessaries, the contract will (generally) bind a minor (a person under the age of 18).
a. True
b. False
a. True
Sarah, aged 50, has been identified with a mental incapacity and is under the control of the court via the provisions set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
She enters into an agreement to purchase a car for £50,000.
When buying the car, her difficulties were not obvious to the salesman.
Is this contract valid?
a. Yes
b. No
b. No
Sarah, aged 50, has been identified with a mental incapacity but is not under the control of the court via the provisions set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
She enters into an agreement to purchase a car for £50,000.
When buying the car, her difficulties were not obvious to the salesman.
Is this contract valid?
a. Yes, unless Sarah can prove she did not understand the nature of the transaction and the salesman knew or should have known of the mental incapacity.
b. No, these types of contracts are never valid.
a. Yes, unless Sarah can prove she did not understand the nature of the transaction and the salesman knew or should have known of the mental incapacity.
Dave has a few pints of lager in the pub with his friends one Friday lunchtime.
Not long after he says goodbye to his friends, he enters into a contract to purchase a state-of-the-art television for £5,000 from his local electrical shop.
On Saturday morning he regrets his decision and visits the shop to cancel the agreement. He states that he was intoxicated, and the agreement is not valid.
The salesperson states that Dave was not drunk and appeared to know exactly what he was doing.
What test needs to be satisfied for Dave to avoid this contract?
Persons who are drunk or under the influence of drugs when a contract is concluded are generally bound by the contract as it is presumed by the courts that they are aware of their actions.
If the other party is unaware of the intoxication the contract is enforceable, but if the party is so intoxicated that they do not know the consequences of the agreement they are concluding and the other party is aware, the contract may not be enforceable.
Jin contacts Aston Bus Company to hire a minibus to take him and his friends to a football match in London.
Due to the negligence of one of the employees of the company, the minibus breaks down on the way and Jin and other passengers must pay to hire several taxis to complete the journey.
Jin claims the difference between the total taxi fees and the hire from the company.
Which of the following is correct?
a. Jin can only claim for his own taxi fare under the rules of privity i.e., he made the contract with the company and therefore only he can sue on it.
b. Jin can claim for his own taxi fare and for those of his friends as this falls within the exception to the privity rule (Jackson v Horizon Holidays).
c. Jin can claim for his own taxi fare and his friends can make their own claims under the ruling in Jackson v Horizon Holidays.
b. Jin can claim for his own taxi fare and for those of his friends as this falls within the exception to the privity rule (Jackson v Horizon Holidays).
Mrs P, her granddaughter and lodger enter a competition each week. The coupon is always in Mrs P’s name although they take it in turns to pay. They also take it in turns to decide the answer to the competition. They agree to share any prizes.
One week they win £750, but Mrs P refuses to share the money with the lodger.
Using your knowledge on the law of intention, do you think Mrs P will be forced to share the prize money?
From the facts there is an intention to enter legal relations and the lodger is entitled to 1/3rd of winnings.
(Simpkins v Pays (1955))
A minor enters an apprenticeship.
Even though most of the terms are to his benefit, some are to his detriment.
Will a contract of this nature be binding on the minor?
A contract for training, education, apprenticeship or employment is binding on a minor provided it is, overall, for his benefit.
A court will examine all the terms of the contract and, even if some terms are to the detriment of the minor, provided most terms are in his favour, it will be binding on him.
What does it mean when a company is said to be acting ‘ultra vires’?
A company is a legal entity with its own legal personality.
As such it can sue and be sued.
A company has a constitution which sets out its powers.
When it acts outside of these powers it is said to be acting ‘ultra vires’ and its actions may be invalid.
