Conditions and Warranties Flashcards
What is the effect of breaching a condition in a contract?
A. The innocent party is entitled only to damages
B. The contract is void automatically
C. The innocent party may treat the contract as at an end and claim damages
D. The breach has no legal consequences
C. The innocent party may treat the contract as at an end and claim damages
Explanation: Breach of a condition = repudiatory breach, giving the right to terminate and claim damages.
Which term is considered to “go to the root of the contract”?
A. Warranty
B. Innominate term
C. Condition
D. Representation
C. Condition
Explanation: A condition is a term essential to the contract – if breached, it allows the innocent party to terminate.
What is a warranty in contract law?
A. A statement that becomes a misrepresentation
B. A minor term that, if breached, allows termination
C. A term going to the root of the contract
D. A term that, if breached, gives rise to damages only
D. A term that, if breached, gives rise to damages only
Explanation: A warranty is not essential to the contract’s core – termination is not available for breach.
A contract states a singer must perform the opening night. She falls ill and misses the first 3 shows. Is this likely a breach of:
A. A representation
B. A condition
C. A warranty
D. A misstatement
B. A condition
Explanation: In Poussard v Spiers, missing key performances was held to breach a condition, justifying termination.
In Hong Kong Fir Shipping, what test did the court apply to classify the term breached?
A. Whether the breach was deliberate
B. Whether the term was mentioned in writing
C. Whether the breach deprived the innocent party of the whole benefit
D. Whether time was of the essence
C. Whether the breach deprived the innocent party of the whole benefit
Explanation: This is the Hong Kong Fir test for innominate terms.
A violinist misses rehearsals but performs at the main concert. The organiser terminates the contract. Was that lawful?
A. Yes, because the term was innominate
B. No, the missed rehearsals breached a warranty
C. Yes, breach of a condition always allows termination
D. No, time was not of the essence
B. No, the missed rehearsals breached a warranty
Explanation: In Bettini v Gye, rehearsals were not essential – the term was a warranty, not a condition.
A buyer receives goods slightly below the agreed standard. The defect is minor. What is the likely remedy?
A. Full termination of the contract
B. Damages only
C. Specific performance
D. Automatic refund and cancellation
B. Damages only
Explanation: If the breach is minor and the term is innominate, only damages are available.
Which of the following correctly reflects the effect of s15A Sale of Goods Act 1979?
A. All breaches of implied terms give rise to rejection
B. Every implied term is treated as a condition
C. Slight breaches may be treated as a warranty only
D. It removes all consumer rights to reject faulty goods
C. Slight breaches may be treated as a warranty only
Explanation: s15A allows the court to treat a slight breach of an implied term as a warranty, not a condition.
A supplier delivers goods one day late under a contract that says “time is of the essence.” What is the likely legal consequence?
A. The buyer must accept the goods
B. The buyer may treat the contract as at an end
C. The buyer can claim only for wasted time
D. The delay will be ignored as trivial
B. The buyer may treat the contract as at an end
Explanation: When time is of the essence, any delay is a repudiatory breach, justifying termination.
What is the usual classification of the term “reasonable care and skill” under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982?
A. Warranty
B. Innominate term
C. Representation
D. Express condition
B. Innominate term
Explanation: Terms like reasonable care and skill are treated as innominate under s13 SGSA.
In which situation will a court likely classify a timing clause as a condition without express wording?
A. Where the clause was inserted informally
B. Where the delay causes no loss
C. In mercantile contracts where timing is crucial
D. In consumer contracts only
C. In mercantile contracts where timing is crucial
Explanation: In commercial settings, timing is often presumed to be of the essence, even if not stated.
A buyer waits weeks after a supplier’s serious delay before acting. The buyer now wants to end the contract. What is the risk?
A. The buyer may have affirmed the contract
B. The buyer can still reject without issue
C. The buyer has waived their right to sue
D. The contract is void due to lapse of time
A. The buyer may have affirmed the contract
Explanation: Delay in acting after a repudiatory breach may be treated as affirmation = loss of right to terminate.
