Contract Law Revision

Fill in the blank parts of the formula

Fisher v Bell [1961] - A shopkeeper was charged with offering to sell knives under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. What was the legal outcome?

• The man was guilty because the knives were considered goods on offer.

• The knives were not an offer, rather, they were an invitation to treat for customers should they opt to purchase one. Therefore, he was not guilty.

• The man was guilty as he should have placed the knives in a secure place away from the window.

• The man was not guilty as he entered in a legal contract with those who purchased knives in his shop.

How can an exemption clause be incorporated into a contract? Name one way.

Answer explanation

Answers could include:

- By signature

• - By express assent

• - By a course of dealing

• - By notice - directly or by reference

Lexie goes into Dragons Den. She offer the dragons 10% of her business in return for a £50,000 investment. Peter Jones loves the business, but he asks for 20% of the business. If Lexie agrees to this, he will invest the £50,000. What is this?

• Invitation to treat

• Qualified Acceptance

• Unqualified Acceptance

• A contract

There are several requirements which must be in place for a contract to form. Name one of these.

Answer explanation

Answers could include:

• - Consensus in idem

• - Consent

• - Capacity

• - Formality

• - Cannot be unlawful, trivial, impossible, or indeterminate.

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which gives rise to legally enforceable obligations. Is this definition true or false?

• True

• False

An invitation to treat is an indication of a [blank] to trade and to consider offers. ​

Name a form of breach of contract.

Answer explanation

Answers could include:

• - Anticipatory breach

• - Failure to perform

• - Delayed performance

• - Unsatisfactory / Defective performance

[Blank] [blank] is where someone is recognised in law as being capable of assuming legally binding obligations.

Mulvein v Murray [1908] - Murray was bound not to sell or canvass any of Mulvein's customers, or to sell or travel in any towns or districts traded in by Mulvein for 12 months. Was this restrictive covenant held to be enforceable or unenforceable? Why?

Answer explanation

The restrictive covenant was effectively assessed in two parts. The first part was valid to protect Mulvein's customer base. However, the second part was considered by Lord Ardwall as 'too wide and too vague.' The restrictive covenant was therefore considered unenforceable.