Classic Classic Quiz Consideration by Diamondsareforever Diamondsareforever 297 played - 12 yrs ago A quiz about the doctrine of consideration in English contract law QUIZ 30 QUESTIONS expert English 1 What is the function of consideration? Restriction of non-gratuitous promisesSo that you cannot accept offersThat I give so that you may giveThat there are no formal restrictionsTo restrict contract law 2 What is the consideration in a unilateral contract? The benefit to the party making the promiseThat you get money for your promiseThat there is an exchange of goodsThat there is some right or interest exchangedThat you get your dog back and some money as well 3 Which case defined what a valuable consideration is? Stilk v MyrickWilliams v Roffey BrosCurrie v Misa (1875)Barber v Fox (1682)Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974] 4 Which of these statements is not true of consideration? That it must move to the promisorNeeds not be adequateMust be of some valueMust move from the promiseeNeeds not to move to the promisor 5 What is the basis to the idea that consideration need not be adequate? Free market economyThat promises can be gratuitousThat you want to sell something for whatever price you chooseThat people should be prevented from having their goods sold below valueClosed market economy 6 Which case held that performance of a pre-existing duty is not good consideration? Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]Stilk v Myrick (1809)Pao On v Lau Yin LongFoakes v Beer (1884)D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 7 Which case held that performance of a pre-existing duty can constitute good consideration if there is some factual benefit to the promisor and there is no duress? Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]Stilk v Myrick (1809)Collier v WrightHughes v Metropolitan RaiwayTungsten v Tool Metal 8 Which case relates to the idea that there is no consideration if the benefit moves from a third party? Stilk v MyrickRe Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]Collier v WrightBarber v Fox (1682)Williams v Roffey Bros 9 Which case relates to the idea that there is consideration even where the benefit is received by a third party? Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]Stilk v MyickBarber v Fox (1682)Currie v Misa (1875)Williams v Roffey Bros 10 What is the general rule relating to past consideration? Past consideration is not good considerationWhere there is no promise there is no considerationPast consideration is valid where the act was done on request of the promiseePast consideration is always good considerationPast consideration is part of a contractual term 11 Which of these is not an exception to the doctrine of past consideration? The act has been done on request of the promisorThe parties agreed that payment should followThat murder can never constitute considerationPayment would have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advanceThe amount of money was not spoken about 12 What happens where there has been no performance at all? One party keeps the money so there is good considerationPerformance should be rewoundPerformance has been defectiveEither party gives up the right to performance but is liberated herself so there is good considerationOne party gives up their rights but the other does not so there is good consideration 13 What happens where there has been performance by one party? Performance shall be rewoundEither party gives up the right to performance but is liberated themselvesOne party keeps the moneyThe goods are defectiveOne party performs for nothing in return 14 What happens where goods are defective? There must be separate consideration (accord and satisfaction)There is a benefit to both the partiesThere is no considerationOne party keeps the money so there is no considerationNothing 15 Which case relates to part payment of debt not being good consideration? Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]Stilk v MyrickFoakes v Beer (1884)Barber v Fox (1682)Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974] 16 What must there be for part payment of debt to be valid? No considerationA formal contractA reasonable amount paidSeparate considerationThe contract involves pigs only 17 What is promissory estoppel? One party is stopped from bringing a claim against the other partyPast consideration is not good considerationThere must be separate considerationYou are always able to bring to a claimA promise to stop contracting with other people 18 Which of these is not a type of estoppel? WorkingPromissoryProprietaryRepresentationConvention 19 What is the leading case to do with promissory estoppel? Rogers v Parish Ltd (1987)WalkerHughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)Roland v Victor (1923)City v Mudd 20 What are the requirements of promissory estoppel? Clear promise not to enforce legal rights and reliance by the promiseeInsisting on strict legal rightsSuspending current rightsGiving new rightsExtinguishing rights and then enforcing them 21 Which case relates to the idea that promissory estoppel gives no new rights? Combe v Combe [1951]Harley v Hymans [1920]Hughes v Metropolitan RailwayTungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] 22 Which case relates to the idea that the buyer may claim damages if the buyer refuses to take delivery after time for delivery has been extended? Harley v Hymans [1920]Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House LtdCollier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]Combe v Combe [1951]Hughes v Metropolitan Railway 23 Which case supports the idea that promissory estoppel does not extinguish rights? Combe v Combe [1951]Harley v Hymas [1920]Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]Tungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 24 What did Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] hold? That promissory estoppel may allow part payment of debtThat past consideration is never good considerationThat part payment of debt is not supported by considerationThat allowing part payment of debt would be inequitableThat the creditor has the right to ask for the rest of the money 25 Which of these is not a criticism of consideration? Restriction to agreements the rationale of which is hard to understandLeads to attempts to escape the straight jacketLeads to inconsistenciesThat it does not apply to electronic contracts 26 Which two cases may be cited as support for the idea that consideration can lead to inconsistencies? Williams v Roffey and Foakes v BeerCurrie v Misa and Stilk v MyrickWilliams v Roffey and Barber v FoxRe Wyvern Developments Ltd and Lampleigh v BraithwaitRe Casey's Patent and Pao On v Lau Yin Long 27 What case did Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] build on? Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]Hughes v Metropolitan RailwaysTungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]Foakes v Beer (1884)D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 28 What does promissory estoppel do? Gives new rightsPrevents rights from being enforcedCreates an equitable remedyAllows new rights to be createdSuspends rights 29 With regards to promissory estoppel it is enforced where insisting on strict legal rights would be... . EquitableGood considerationNot allowed in lawA breach of the Sales of Goods Act 1979Inequitable 30 When was the word estoppel first used? 15311200158310571044 A mistake in this Quiz ? Contact the author Commentaires
