CONTRACT Flashcards
Which rule of consideration does promissory estoppel provide an exception to?
Part payment of a debt without fresh consideration does not discharge the debt obligation.
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Consideration must move from the promisee.
Consideration must not be past.
Part payment of a debt without fresh consideration does not discharge the debt obligation
Correct. Promissory estoppel provides an equitable exception to this rule.
Which of the following is not an essential element of promissory estoppel?
Promissory estoppel acts as a shield and not a sword
There must be a clear and unequivocal promise that strict legal rights will not be enforced.
The promisee must have changed their position in reliance on the promise
The promisee must act to his detriment
The promisee must act to his detriment
Correct
Whilst is is necessary that the promise has influenced the promisee’s conduct, it appears that it is not essential that the promisee has acted to their detriment.
A restaurant owner owes a vegetable supplier £2500. The restaurant owner knows that the supplier is experiencing financial problems. The restaurant owner gives the supplier a cheque for £1000 in full and final satisfaction of the debt owed. The supplier accepts the cheque but later sues the restaurant owner for the balance of £1500. Which of the following statements is correct?
The supplier cannot recover the balance of £1500 as their acceptance of the cheque for £1000 discharged the debt.
The supplier cannot recover the balance of £1500 because their acceptance of the cheque for £1000 is binding.
The supplier cannot recover the balance of £1500 as it would be inequitable for them to go back on their word.
The supplier can recover the balance of £1500 as it is not inequitable for them to go back on their promise.
The supplier can recover the balance of £1500 as it is not inequitable for them to go back on their promise.
Correct
The supplier’s promise to accept less was obtained as a result of pressure on the supplier, therefore the restaurant owner is unlikely to successfully rely on the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel as it is unlikely that it would be considered inequitable for the supplier to go back on his promise.
A tenant has lost her job and she is struggling to pay her rent. Keen to help, the landlord informs the tenant that he is willing to accept half the rent due each month until she finds a new job. The tenant pays half rent for two months and uses some of the money she saved to buy new shoes to wear at interviews. The landlord is now having second thoughts. Under what circumstances can the landlord demand full rent?
The landlord can demand full rent after the expiry of reasonable notice.
The landlord cannot demand full rent as the tenant has accepted his offer therefore he is bound.
The landlord can demand that full rent is paid immediately.
The landlord cannot demand full rent before the tenant has found a new job.
The landlord can demand full rent after the expiry of reasonable notice.
A promisor may resume his full legal rights after giving reasonable notice - Tool Metal v Tungsten.
A man has lost his dog. He puts up signs around the local neighbourhood with his address and a picture of his dog, reading “£50 reward for anyone who returns this dog to me”. Which one of the following is CORRECT in relation to offer and acceptance as applied to this scenario?
The man has made an offer which is accepted by someone finding the dog.
The man has not made an offer to contract because a very large number of people might read the notice and search for the dog.
The man has made an offer which is accepted by someone looking for the dog.
The man has not made an offer to contract because it is possible the dog does not exist or is unfortunately dead at the time of the offer.
The man has made an offer which is accepted by someone returning the dog to the man.
The man has made an offer which is accepted by someone returning the dog to the man.
Correct
Correct: this is what the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company suggests. This is a unilateral contract. Only returning the dog will constitute acceptance – simply finding the dog would be insufficient.
On 1 February, a Council places a notice on public display which reads: “For sale, (used) printers, £85 each, contact Council Estates Division”. On 5 February, a woman writes to the Council Estates Division ‘I am happy to pay £85 for one of your printers identified in your notice dated 1 February’. On 11 February, the Council writes back ‘thank you for your letter dated 5 February. We are happy to go ahead. Please contact us by telephone to arrange delivery’. Which one of the following best explains the legal position?
The notice constitutes an invitation to treat. The woman’s letter dated 5 February is an offer. The Council’s letter of 11 February is an acceptance.
The notice constitutes an invitation to treat which was rejected by the woman’s counter-offer in her letter dated 5 February. The Council’s letter of 11 February is an acceptance.
The notice constitutes an offer which was accepted by the woman’s letter dated 5 February. The council’s letter of 11 February is a request for further information.
The notice constitutes an offer which was rejected by the woman’s counter-offer in her letter dated 5 February. The Council’s letter of 11 February is an acceptance.
The notice constitutes an offer which was rejected by the woman’s counter-offer in her letter dated 5 February. The Council’s letter of 11 February is a request for further information.
The notice constitutes an invitation to treat. The woman’s letter dated 5 February is an offer. The Council’s letter of 11 February is an acceptance.
Correct: you have correctly identified the invitation to treat, offer and acceptance
To promote a new sports club, the venue owner puts an advert in a newspaper advertising an open day for potential members. The advert includes the following statement, ‘Shoot ten netball goals in a row at our open day and you will receive a £50 club token to spend on fitness classes’. Person A sees the advert and immediately phones the club to state that she accepts the challenge and will be attending the fun day. Person A is the first person to shoot ten goals. Person B sees the advert and is the second person to shoot ten goals.
Which ONE of the following statements BEST EXPLAINS the legal position?
Person A is the only participant who is entitled to a token as she was the only participant who communicated her intention to accept prior to completion of the prescribed act.
The advert is a unilateral offer. Consequently, it will be construed to entitle the first person to shoot ten goals to be entitled a token. Only person A is entitled to a token.
The advert is a unilateral offer. Person A and Person B are both entitled to a token as they have completed the act prescribed by the advert.
The advert is an invitation to treat. Consequently, none of the participants are entitled to a token.
The advert is an invitation to treat. By contacting the club, Person A has formed a bilateral contract with the sports club and is entitled to a token.
The advert is a unilateral offer. Person A and Person B are both entitled to a token as they have completed the act prescribed by the advert.
Correct. This answer correctly applies the principles relating to unilateral offers.
The owner of a campervan sends an email to an interested buyer. Her email states, ‘I will sell my campervan to you for £15,000.’ The interested buyer responds, ‘I want to go ahead if your campervan has a full-service history.’
Which one of the following statements best describes the legal position?
The interested buyer’s response is a request for further information. The campervan owner’s offer remains open for acceptance.
The campervan owner’s email is an invitation to treat. The interested buyer’s response is an offer.
The interested buyer’s response is a conditional acceptance. The parties will have a contract for the sale of the campervan provided it has a full-service history.
The interested buyer’s response is a counter offer. The campervan owner’s offer is extinguished.
The interested buyer’s response is a request for further information. The campervan owner’s offer is extinguished.
The interested buyer’s response is a request for further information. The campervan owner’s offer remains open for acceptance.
correct
An antique collector visits a local auction house. The auction includes a rare antique table like the one the antique collector is looking for and the auction is stated to be ‘without reserve’. The auctioneer invites bids. The antique collector bids £500. Although the antique collector is the only person in the room to bid, the auctioneer refuses to accept his bid, stating that it is too low.
What advice would you give the antique collector?
The auctioneer is in breach of a unilateral contract and the antique collector is entitled to damages.
The auctioneer is in breach of a bilateral contract and the antique collector is entitled to damages.
The auctioneer is in breach of a bilateral contract and the antique collector is entitled to buy the table for £500.
There is no contract between the parties and the antique collector is entitled to nothing.
The auctioneer is in breach of a unilateral contract and the antique collector is entitled to nominal damages.
The auctioneer is in breach of a unilateral contract and the antique collector is entitled to damages.
Correct
Although a request for bids at an auction is usually no more than an invitation to treat, a statement that an item will be auctioned ‘without reserve’ constitutes a unilateral offer which is accepted by the act of a bona fide bidder making the highest bid (Warlow v Harrison, confirmed in Barry v Davies). No contract for sale of the table has been concluded between the parties, as the auctioneer’s hammer has not fallen (which would otherwise constitute acceptance of the antique collector’s offer – Payne v Cave). As a result, the antique collector is not entitled to the table. However, the antique collector has accepted the auctioneer’s unilateral offer by making the highest (albeit the only) bid at the auction and is therefore entitled to damages for breach of that separate collateral contract (Barry v Davies).
A gardener has carried out gardening works in return for payment for a client over a period of five years. The client asks the gardener to cut his hedge when she is carrying out other works in the local area. The gardener and client do not discuss payment before the work is carried out. When the hedge is cut the client refuses to pay the gardener’s invoice for £40. Which of the following statements best explains the gardener’s legal position?
The gardener is not entitled to payment as payment was not discussed prior to the service being carried and so the act of painting the shed is past consideration.
The gardener is entitled to payment. Consideration must be sufficient. As the gardener has carried out a commercial service, the client must pay sufficient consideration.
The gardener is not entitled to payment. The court will not determine the adequacy of consideration, and so cannot decide the amount to be paid in return for services if it was not agreed by the parties in advance of the service being carried out.
The gardener is entitled to payment. The client requested the work was carried out, the client and gardener must have understood that the act was to be rewarded and the payment would be legally enforceable if promised in advance.
The gardener is entitled to payment. The gardener has exceeded previous obligations owed to the client and so has provided fresh consideration to support payment.
The gardener is entitled to payment. The client requested the work was carried out, the client and gardener must have understood that the act was to be rewarded and the payment would be legally enforceable if promised in advance.
Correct. The exception to the past consideration under Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17 is particularly relevant to this scenario.
A tenant rents a warehouse from which to operate its business. The rent is £12,000 per month. The tenant is struggling financially. It is considering (lawfully) terminating the lease. It asks the landlord to accept £7,500 per month instead. The landlord agrees. This allows the tenant to carry on trading and to not terminate the lease. After 6 months, the tenant recovers from its financial difficulties. The landlord indicates that in 3 months’ time he will put the rent back up to £12,000. After the 3 months’ notice expires (so after 9 months of reduced rent), the tenant continues to pay only £7,500 per month. Which one of the following statements best describes the legal position?
The landlord is now bound to accept £7,500 per month for as long as the lease continues, but he can recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500.
The landlord is likely to be entitled to £12,000 going forward, and to recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500, and to recover interest on each instalment of £4,500.
The landlord is likely to be entitled to £12,000 going forward, and to recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500.
The landlord is now bound to accept £7,500 per month for as long as the lease continues, and cannot recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500.
The landlord is likely to be entitled to £12,000 going forward, but not to recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500.
The landlord is likely to be entitled to £12,000 going forward, but not to recover £4,500 for each of the 9 months when the tenant only paid £7,500.
correct
The owner of a holiday park agrees to pay a contractor £20,000 to cover the ground and trees in the holiday village with fake snow. When the contractor is half way through laying the snow, he realises he has made an error in his calculations and he will need double the amount of snow than he allowed for under the terms of the fixed price contract. The holiday park owner agrees to pay the £10,000 extra requested by the contractor as he has promised hundreds of guests a ‘snow covered magical village’. The contractor also recognises that the original contract had been under-priced. Which one of the following statements best explains the legal position?
The contractor will not be entitled to the extra £10,000 as the £20,000 in the original contract is adequate consideration.
The contractor is entitled to the extra £10,000 as it has provided consideration by going over and above its existing contractual obligations by laying the additional snow.
The contractor will be able to rely on promissory estoppel as a defence if the holiday park owner sues him for the additional £10,000.
The contractor will not be entitled to the extra £10,000 as he has simply performed his existing contractual obligations.
The contractor will be entitled to the extra £10,000 if the contractor’s ability to honour his promise to his guests amounts to factual consideration.
The contractor will be entitled to the extra £10,000 if the contractor’s ability to honour his promise to his guests amounts to factual consideration.
Correct. This is the likely result of applying the case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Contractors Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 to this situation.
A 16-year-old girl agrees to hire some gardening equipment, with a view to providing gardening services to local residents over the summer holidays. She later refuses to pay for the equipment, despite having started to use it. Can the supplier of the equipment enforce the contract against the girl?
No, the contract is not enforceable because contracts are never enforceable against minors.
Yes, the contract is enforceable against the girl as the gardening equipment can be regarded as a ‘necessary’.
Yes, because the contract is for her benefit.
No, the contract is not enforceable against the girl as it is in her best interests not to be bound by the agreement.
No, the contract is not enforceable against the girl as she is a minor and none of the exceptions to the general rule apply
No, the contract is not enforceable against the girl as she is a minor and none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.
Well done. This is the correct answer for the reasons stated.
A man is approached by a ticket seller outside a concert who offers to sell him a ticket. The man likes the band, but saw them recently so hesitates. The seller holds a knife to the man and says “Buy the ticket now or I’ll cut you.” The man buys the ticket. Whilst queuing later, he sees the seller being arrested. He goes over and asks for his money back.
Was the contract entered into under duress?
Yes. The physical threat was a significant cause of the man’s decision to contract.
Yes. The man had no practical alternative but to enter into the contract.
Yes, but only if the man can prove that the threat of force was more influential on his decision than his desire to see the band.
Yes. The physical threat was one of the reasons the man entered into the contract and duress will be found unless the seller can prove the threat contributed nothing.
No. The man had a reason other than the threat of force to enter into the contract (he liked the band), so there is no duress.
Yes. The physical threat was one of the reasons the man entered into the contract and duress will be found unless the seller can prove the threat contributed nothing.
Correct. This answer correctly applies the leading case on duress to the person, Barton v Armstrong. The other answers seem plausible but are not correct as they do not correctly outline the elements of duress to the person and/or the test of causation applied to duress to the person.
A builder agrees to build a house for a landlady, due for completion on 1 February, for £100,000. The landlady agrees with a third party to rent the property from 2 February, at a premium rate. On 20 January a labour shortage occurs and the builder, knowing the landlady will not find another builder, threatens to stop work unless he is paid an extra £10,000. The landlady protests, but pays the extra £10,000. The house is completed on 1 February. The landlady waits until the third party begins renting the property and then seeks the return of the £10,000.
Which of the following statements best describes the legal position in relation to the landlady’s potential claim for economic duress?
The landlady affirmed the contract, so a claim of economic duress will likely fail.
The landlady was presented with no viable alternative but to agree to the builder’s demand, and that suffices for economic duress.
The builder was acting in bad faith and that suffices for economic duress.
The builder’s threat was a significant cause of the landlady paying the extra £10,000, and that suffices for economic duress.
The landlady’s claim for economic duress is likely to succeed. Although the landlady delayed taking action to set the contract aside this is unlikely to amount to an act of affirmation.
The landlady’s claim for economic duress is likely to succeed. Although the landlady delayed taking action to set the contract aside this is unlikely to amount to an act of affirmation.
Correct. The builder’s demand is likely to amount to economic duress applying the leading test set out by Dyson J in DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo Services. Although delay in seeking to set aside the contract can prevent a claim in duress succeeding, the land lady’s short delay in setting the contract aside is unlikely to be sufficient to be regarded as an act of affirmation. The other answers seem plausible but they are not correct. All elements of Dyson J’s test for duress need to be considered. It is not correct to state that duress will succeed based on only one element of the test.
A high end restaurant is being reviewed by an influential food critic and the head chef wants to make the critic’s favourite dish, requiring rare truffle oil. It contracts to buy some for £100 from the only UK supplier. The supplier later learns of the critic’s visit and says it will now only sell the oil for £1000. The restaurant agrees, but on receipt of the invoice refuses to pay more than £100.
Which of the following statements best describes the legal position in relation to the restaurant’s potential claim for economic duress?
The restaurant has no practical choice to source the truffle oil elsewhere, meaning there is duress. Expecting the restaurant to make an alternative meal is not a viable practical alternative.
This is not duress as the supplier’s demand of an additional £900 was not a threat made in bad faith.
By agreeing without protest to pay to the supplier’s demand of an additional £900 the restaurant has affirmed the amendment to the contract and will not be able to set the contract aside for duress.
This is not duress but a freely negotiated amendment to the contract by two commercial parties and the court will uphold it based on the freedom of contract.
As long as the restaurant can make another high quality meal for the critic, they have sufficient practical choice, such that there was no duress.
As long as the restaurant can make another high quality meal for the critic, they have sufficient practical choice, such that there was no duress.
Correct – for economic duress, there must be a lack of practical choice. The test is practical choice in relation to acquiescence to the demand. As long as the restaurant can make another dish which is equally likely to impress the critic then they had a practical choice, and did not have to agree to pay £1000. The sellers demand was a threat made in bad faith (but it did not present a lack of practical choice). There was no good consideration to support the amendment and in any event duress overrides the principle of freedom of contract.
An adult daughter acts as her elderly mother’s carer. The daughter asks the mother for a loan to support a new business venture. The mother is reluctant as it is for a very large amount. The daughter is furious and asks her mother why she will not support her given how much she has done for her. The mother reluctantly agrees to the loan as she does not want to upset her daughter as she is so reliant upon her. The daughter’s business fails, and she does not repay the loan. The mother is now in residential care and wants to her money back. Identify the most appropriate cause of action for the mother.
Duress to goods
Lack of consideration
Economic duress
Undue influence
Duress to the person
Undue influence
Correct. Although there is some overlap between the doctrines of duress and undue influence, this is the most appropriate cause of action on the facts.
A publisher contracts to sell 100 books to a shop, with a 14-day credit facility. The books are stored at a warehouse which floods, destroying the books. The publisher knows the books were still its responsibility, but falsely tells the shop it believes the books were their responsibility and unless the shop pays for them, threatens to revoke the credit facility. The shop knows it is not liable for the books, but decides that paying is better than losing the credit facility.
Was the publisher’s threat to remove the credit facility “illegitimate pressure”, for the purposes of establishing economic duress?
No. The shop took a commercial decision that it was better to pay for the 100 books and the court will uphold the principle of freedom of contract.
Possibly. It depends on whether the shop had access to another credit facility with a third party.
No. The shop should have had the courage of its convictions that the books were the publisher’s responsibility.
Yes. The publisher was using this as a means of extorting money it knew was not due to it.
No. Until a court decides that the books were still the publisher’s responsibility, it cannot be said the publisher’s threat was improper.
Yes. The publisher was using this as a means of extorting money it knew was not due to it.
Correct. This answer correctly applies the criterion of illegitimate pressure. The other answers seem plausible, but they are not correct. Duress trumps the principle of freedom of contract. The relevant test for illegitimate pressure looks at the intentions of the person making the threat. Access to another credit facility is not relevant to illegitimate pressure but to a different part of the test – lack of practical choice.
The owner of a construction company (‘company owner’) purchases a forklift truck from an online retailer. After the forklift truck is delivered, he notices a dent at the front. The company owner decides to use the forklift truck anyway. One month later, the company owner decides that he wants to get a different forklift truck from a different shop. He telephones the online retailer and says that he wants to return the forklift truck and get a refund but the online retailer refuses. Which one of the following statements best explains the legal position?
The online retailer has not breached any terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as the forklift truck was still usable for its intended purpose. Consequently, the company owner cannot return the forklift truck and get a refund.
Although the online retailer was in breach of the term implied by s 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the breach was so slight that returning the forklift truck would be unreasonable. Consequently, the term breached will be classed as a warranty.
The online retailer has breached the term implied by s 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The company owner may have been entitled to return the forklift truck; however, he affirmed the contract by using the forklift truck for a month. Consequently, he cannot return the forklift truck and get a refund.
The online retailer has breached the term implied by s 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The term implied by s 14(2) is a condition which means that Company owner can return the forklift truck and get a refund.
Since the company owner affirmed the contract by accepting delivery of the forklift truck, the online retailer has not breached any implied terms. Consequently, the company owner cannot return the forklift truck and get a refund.
The online retailer has breached the term implied by s 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The company owner may have been entitled to return the forklift truck; however, he affirmed the contract by using the forklift truck for a month. Consequently, he cannot return the forklift truck and get a refund.
Correct. This answer correctly identifies the breach, the available remedy and the effect of affirmation.
A mother wants to buy a pony for her daughter. She visits the owner of a stable yard who is selling a pony. The mother says, ‘I only want the pony if she is happy to be petted.’ As she says this, she goes over to try and stroke the pony. The stable yard owner stands in her way and says ‘she’s happy to be petted. No need to check! You can have her for £500.’ The mother agrees to buy the pony the same day. When the pony arrives at her new home it is obvious that she is not happy to be petted. Which one of the following statements best explains the legal position?
The stable yard owner’s statement that the pony is happy to be petted is likely to be a term of the contract. This is because it was important to the mother, the stable yard owner had specialist knowledge, she prevented the mother from checking, and the statement was made on the same day the contract was entered into.
The stable yard owner’s statement that the pony is happy to be petted is likely to be a representation. It was unreasonable for the mother to rely on the expertise of the stable yard owner as she is best placed to know what pony would be suitable for daughter.
Despite The stable yard owner’s protestations, the mother should have checked whether the pony was happy to be petted. The failure to check will result in the stable yard owner’s statement being a representation.
Since the stable yard owner’s statement that the pony is happy to be petted was not written down, it will be a representation.
Since there was some delay between the statement that the pony is happy to be petted being made and the mother agreeing to buy the horse, it will be a representation. In order to be a term, a statement must be made immediately prior to contracting.
The stable yard owner’s statement that the pony is happy to be petted is likely to be a term of the contract. This is because it was important to the mother, the stable yard owner had specialist knowledge, she prevented the mother from checking, and the statement was made on the same day the contract was entered into.
Correct. This answer correctly applies the legal principles on distinguishing a representation from a term.
A customer buys a rechargeable lawnmower online from a retailer which operates a website selling gardening equipment to consumers throughout the UK for £170. The website describes the lawnmower as capable of operating for 90 minutes without needing to be recharged. In fact, it only operates for 35 minutes before needing to be charged. The customer wishes to bring a claim on the basis that the contract has failed to comply with the implied term that the goods would comply with their description. Which ONE of the following statements best describes the situation in relation to remedies available / not available to John?
The customer will not have any remedy for this breach.
This breach entitles the customer to damages, but not to terminate the contract.
This breach entitles the customer to terminate the contact.
The remedies available to the customer as a result of this breach are as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The remedies available to the customer as a result of this breach depend on the consequences of the breach in accordance with the case of Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki.
The remedies available to the customer as a result of this breach are as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Correct. The other answers seem plausible, but they are not correct as they fail to identify which legislation this implied term comes from.
A road maintenance company hires a van from vehicle hire company, at a cost of £270. The van is wholly unreliable and causes the maintenance significant losses. Under the contract between the two parties, the maintenance company has to return the van in the same condition as at the start of the hire period. On returning the van to the hire company’s yard, the hire company inspects the van, and presents the maintenance company with a sheet of A4 paper, marked “Record of vehicle condition at end of hire period”. The paper has a diagrammatic representation of a car split into various areas. Next to each area is written “no damage”. The hire company signs this sheet, and asks the maintenance company’s representative to sign it, which he does. At the foot of the page are various terms and conditions, in small print, which the maintenance company’s representative does not read. One of these terms (the ‘Term’) provides that the hire company’s liability for losses during the hire period is limited to £300. The maintenance company seeks to recover its losses caused by the van being unreliable, which exceed this sum, and the hire company seeks to rely on the Term to limit any liability. Which ONE of the following statements is most likely to be correct?
The Term was not incorporated into the parties’ contract because an objective party would not consider the document to have contractual effect.
The Term was incorporated into the parties’ contract because this is a reasonable term to include in the contract.
Whether or not the Term was incorporated into the parties’ contract depends on the extent of the maintenance company’s losses.
The Term was incorporated into the parties’ contract because the maintenance company signed the document.
The Term was not incorporated into the parties’ contract because the maintenance company did not read it.
The Term was not incorporated into the parties’ contract because an objective party would not consider the document to have contractual effect.
This answer correctly applies the principles of incorporation of contractual terms.
A student joins a kayaking course with an adventure company. Her instructor on the course negligently takes her into rapids far too dangerous for someone of her ability and experience. She capsizes and collides with several rocks, causing facial injuries. The contract she signed when she registered for the course included a clause (the ‘Clause’) which stated that the adventure company would not be liable for any facial injuries or disfigurements caused during the kayaking and would only be liable for broken limbs and fingers. Which one of the following is correct?
The Clause will be effective to exclude liability for the student’s injuries if it passes the test of reasonableness in s 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
The Clause will be effective to exclude liability the student’s injuries depending on the severity of the personal injuries.
The Clause will be effective to exclude liability for the student’s injuries if it passes the test of fairness in s 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Clause will not be effective to exclude liability for the student’s injuries
The Clause will be effective to exclude liability for the student’s injuries.
The Clause will not be effective to exclude liability for the student’s injuries
Correct – this is the effect of s.65 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
A carpenter contracts with a company to carry out plumbing services. At the time of contracting an agent of the company signs a form containing the following clause, ‘Liability for breach of any express or implied term of the contract is limited to £500’. The clause is written in very small print. The carpenter carries out the services with a lack of reasonable care and skill causing damage to company property. Which one of the following statements best explains the legal position?
The carpenter has breached s 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The exemption has not been incorporated into the contract as insufficient notice was given of an onerous clause.
The carpenter has breached s 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The exemption clause limits liability for negligence at common law, however the company will not be taken to have voluntarily accepted any risk merely because he agreed to or knew about the exemption clause.
The carpenter has breached s 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The exemption clause limits liability for negligence at common law, however the clause would be void under s 2(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as it attempts to limit liability for personal injury caused by negligence.
The carpenter has breached s 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The exemption clause limits liability for negligence at common law, however the clause will only be effective in accordance with s 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 if it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness.
The carpenter has breached s 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The exemption clause has been incorporated by signature but will not be construed to cover negligence at common law as it is too wide and limits liability for heads other than negligence liability.
The carpenter has breached s 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The exemption clause limits liability for negligence at common law, however the clause will only be effective in accordance with s 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 if it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness.
Correct. This answer sets out the correct breach under s 13 SGSA and recognises that the clause is effective at common law (passing incorporation and construction) but would be subjected to the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Although the other answer options sound plausible they are all incorrect. This contract does not fall under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The clause has been validly incorporated through signature. The requirement for a greater notice for an onerous clause applies to incorporation through notice, not signature. The clause is not too wide to be construed to cover negligence as negligence is the only realistic head of damages on the facts. As there is no personal injury loss s2(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is not engaged. The fact that this clause could relate to personal injury caused by negligence does not invalidate the clause vis a vis other heads of damage.