Question 1

The concept of estoppel is where

Accepted Answer

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from denying the truth of a statement or going back on a promise. It may be used to prevent a party from asserting a right or a claim that would prejudice the other party, based on previous statements or conduct. Therefore, option E is the best answer.

Question 2

Jack and Jill are friends.Jack agrees to mow Jill's lawn and Jill agrees to pay Jack $50.00.Jill wants the lawn mowed by April 1.Jill returns on April 3 and finds that the lawn has not been mowed.Jill,who is entertaining the next day,goes to Jack and promises that if he mows the lawn that day,she will give him an additional $20.00.Jack mows the lawn but Jill refuses to pay him the additional $20.00.Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

Jack had a pre-existing legal duty to mow the lawn, as he had already agreed to do so for $50. Jill's promise of an additional $20 without any new consideration does not create a legal obligation for her to pay it. This is a classic example of the doctrine of past consideration, where a promise based on an act done in the past is not considered valid consideration. Therefore, Jill has no obligation to pay the additional $20 and choice B is the correct answer.

Question 3

The principle of injurious reliance is

Accepted Answer

The principle of injurious reliance refers to the loss or harm that is suffered by a promisee who has relied on a gratuitous promise to their detriment. This means that they suffered some sort of harm or loss due to their reliance on the promise, and may be entitled to compensation as a result.

Question 4

Use this fact situation to answer the questions that follow it. In January 1941 in Canada,John Landlord and Harry Tenant enter into a lease under which Harry agrees to rent a house from John for five years at a rent of $1000.00 per month.In March 1941,Canada declares war on Germany and John tells Harry that until the war is over,Harry will not have to pay rent.Of course,Harry stops paying rent while the war goes on.The war ends in January 1945,and now John Landlord sues Harry for all of the rent from March 1941 to present.In turn,Harry is thinking of suing John Landlord on the basis that his statement to Harry about not paying the rent during the war was a contract.
In the fact situation above,

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, if John Landlord made a promise to Harry Tenant which induced Harry to act to his detriment, and if it would be unconscionable or unjust for John to go back on his promise, then Harry may have a defence to John's action to recover rent, as he relied on John's promise not to pay rent while the war was ongoing. The court may find that John is estopped from going back on his promise and cannot recover the rent from Harry. Therefore, choice E is the best answer.

Question 5

Use the fact situation in Q10 to answer the related question that follows. The principle of law that arises out of the fact situation above was meant to overcome an earlier principle of law that stated that

Accepted Answer

The fact situation described in Q10 refers to the principle of law known as "Accord and Satisfaction", which states that payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of a greater sum is no payment at all. This principle was meant to overcome an earlier principle of law that allowed termination of a contract by payment of a lesser sum, even if it was not in full satisfaction of the original amount owed. Therefore, choice D is the correct answer.

Question 6

The contractual requirement of consideration provides that

Accepted Answer

The contractual requirement of consideration means that each party must give something of value in exchange. This can be money, goods, services, or promises to perform certain acts. The value does not need to be equal, but both parties must offer and receive something in the transaction.

Question 7

Even when offer and acceptance and consideration are present,there may be no enforceable contract if

Accepted Answer

If there is no intent to create legal relations, then there is no enforceable contract. This means that the parties did not intend for their agreement to be legally binding and therefore the contract is not enforceable in court.

Question 8

The reasonable bystander test is

Accepted Answer

The reasonable bystander test is used by the courts to determine whether parties intended to enter into legal relations with each other. It asks whether a reasonable bystander, observing the parties' behavior and communications, would conclude that they intended to be legally bound by their agreement. This test is particularly relevant in cases where the parties have not explicitly stated whether they intended to create a legally binding contract.

Question 9

A gratuitous promise differs from a contract in that

Accepted Answer

A gratuitous promise is a one-sided promise where consideration flows only from the promisor to the promisee. It is different from a contract in that a contract requires consideration to flow in both directions and is legally binding. A gratuitous promise can be revoked, and the terms may not be specific or precise enough to be enforced. It also does not require the payment of money to the offeror by the offeree. However, it can lapse if not accepted within a reasonable time.

Question 10

Consideration is

Accepted Answer

Consideration is a legal term that refers to the price paid in exchange for a promise. It is the benefit received by one party and the detriment suffered by the other in a contract. In other words, consideration is what each party gives up in order to make the agreement enforceable. Therefore, the best choice is A) the price that is paid for the promise of another.

Question 11

Which of the following is NOT true about consideration?

Accepted Answer

Consideration does not need to be adequate, meaning the law does not require the value of the consideration to be fair or equal to the value of the promise or goods/services received in return. The key requirement is that consideration must be legally sufficient (having some value in the eyes of the law) and not necessarily equal in value to what is received in return.

Question 12

Which of the following would a court NOT regard as consideration on the part of a party to a contract?

Accepted Answer

Consideration must be something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances. A promise to pay for what the other party has already done is not considered valid consideration because it does not involve a new or additional benefit or detriment to either party; it is essentially a promise to pay for a past action, which does not meet the requirement for consideration in forming a contract.

Question 13

When a contract is authenticated by the affixing of a seal,the contract will be enforceable even when it lacks

Accepted Answer

Historically, a seal on a document signified a formal commitment, making the contract enforceable even without consideration, which is usually a requirement for contract validity.

Question 14

A promise by a creditor to accept less than full payment from a debtor is

Accepted Answer

The answer of A promise by a creditor to accept...

Question 15

James does some work for Jim.Jim refuses to pay on the grounds that not all the work was done.Jack takes Jim to court and the judge says Jack is entitled to a quantum meruit.This means that

Accepted Answer

Quantum meruit refers to the legal principle that a person who has provided goods or services is entitled to receive a reasonable amount of compensation for those goods or services. In this case, the judge has ruled that Jack is entitled to a quantum meruit, which means that Jim must pay a reasonable amount for the work that was done, even if not all the work was completed. Therefore, choice C is the correct option.

Question 16

Use the fact situation in Q10 to answer the related question that follows. The principle of contract law that arises in the fact situation above is

Accepted Answer

In the fact situation, the promise by the father to pay his son $1000 a month for college expenses was made without any enforceable consideration. However, the son relied on this promise to his detriment by quitting his job and focusing on his studies, thereby suffering a loss. This gives rise to the principle of promissory estoppel, which prevents the father from going back on his promise even though there was no consideration.

Question 17

A,at the request of B,enters into a contract to buy a horse from B for a certain price.Just after entering into the contract,B tells A that the horse is sound and healthy.Later A discovers that,in fact,the horse is in ill health.In this situation,B's statement to A that the horse was sound and healthy

Accepted Answer

B's statement to A about the horse's health was made after the contract was already formed, so it cannot be considered fresh consideration. Additionally, there was no additional benefit given by A to B in exchange for the statement, so it cannot be considered partly fresh and partly past consideration. Therefore, the statement is only based on past consideration (i.e. the original agreement to sell the horse), which is not enough to make it binding.

Question 18

On March 1,Al agrees to sell Barb his house for $250 000.Barb pays a deposit of $15 000,and they agree that title will transfer and the price will be paid on April 30.The agreement is signed by both parties under seal.What is the consideration on Barb's part?

Accepted Answer

The answer of On March 1,Al agrees to sell Barb...

Question 19

An intention to create legal relations exists if

Accepted Answer

An intention to create legal relations exists if a reasonable person would believe that the parties intended to be bound by the contract. This means that there must be evidence that the parties meant for their agreement to be legally enforceable. The existence of an offer, acceptance, and consideration are important elements of a contract, but they do not necessarily prove the parties' intention to create legal relations. Capacity to enter into a contract is also important, but it does not address the issue of intention. The court may examine the facts to determine the parties' intention, but this is not the only way to establish intention.

Question 20

Jack walks into a bar.He is a little tipsy.The waitress pours him a pint of beer and he pays with all the money he has on him.He makes this statement to the waitress: "Sorry I can't tip you today,but you know what,I have this lottery ticket,and if I win,I'll split it with you." The waitress says,"No problem,Jack." Jack later makes a copy of the ticket for the waitress.The next day Jack receives a call from Stephanie,the waitress,who tells him that she checked the numbers and that he has won $1 million.Stephanie asks,"Our deal is on right?" Jack says,"What deal?" She says,"You promised to split the winning ticket with me." He says,"Really?" Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jack walks into a bar.He is a...

Quiz 6: Formation of a Contract: Consideration and Intention