Contract law quiz 4

Which of the following is CORRECT

• consideration can only be present & future

• consideration can be past, present, or future

• consideration can only be present

• past consideration is no consideration

In Chappel v Nestle, the chocolate bar wrappers were considered

• Not valid consideration as they would be simply thrown away

• Valid consideration as the promotion would increase the sales of chocolate bars

• Insufficient consideration

• Inadequate value to constitute consideration

Which of the following statements is TRUE about minors and contract law?

.

• A minor is allowed to enter into a contract under certain circumstances

• A minor can never enter into a contract.

• A minor can always enter into a contract if they obtain parental permission.

• A minor can always enter into a contract.

Shasha had her purse and some jewellery stolen from her locker whilst using the swimming pool at the Comfort luxury spa.

The Manager referred Shasha to a notice which was displayed on the wall of the changing room which excluded the company from all liability

for items lost or stolen whilst on the premises, unless handed to the receptionist for safe keeping.

Will the company escape liability for her loss?

• The notice would be invalid under Contracts Act 1950 and thus unenforceable.

• The contract would have been entered into when Shasha first used the leisure facilities, in this case when she entered the swimming pool. The clause would therefore be incorporated into the contract.

• The contract would have been entered into upon registration, therefore the clause would not have been incorporated into the contract and Shasha can claim for her loss.

• The notice will be effective and will exclude the spa from all liability for Shabnam's loss.

Maya took a pair of shoes to be re-healed at a local cobbler. On handing over the shoes, she was asked to sign a receipt.

The cobbler also requested her to have a look at the printed terms on the receipt.

Maya signed the document without reading it. It transpired that the clause excluded liability for any damage whatsoever to footwear left

in the possession of the shop. The shoes were damaged when the cobbler accidentally drilled a hole through the base of one of the shoes.

The cobbler sought to rely on the ticket containing the exclusion clause and signed by Maya. Can the cobbler rely on the clause?

• It appears that the extent of the exclusion clause has been misrepresented so it is unlikely that the cobbler will be able to rely on it.

• The cobbler can rely on the clause as it was brought to Maya's attention upon entering into the contract.

• The clause will be void under Malaysian contract law, so the cobbler will be unable to rely upon it.

• The cobbler will be able to rely on the clause because the damage was due to a genuine accident.