Contract Law Quiz

Which of the following is NOT a way to discharge a contract?

• Performance

• Breach

• Frustration

• Agreement

Answer explanation

The correct answer is 'Agreement' because it refers to a mutual decision to modify or end a contract, rather than a method of discharging it. Performance, Breach, and Frustration are all valid ways to discharge a contract.

In the case of Cutter v Powell (1795), why was the contract discharged?

• Cutter completed his work

• Cutter died before completing his work, making performance incomplete

• Cutter breached the contract by not finishing his work

• Cutter was fired before completing his work

Answer explanation

The contract was discharged because Cutter died before completing his work, which rendered the performance incomplete. This means he could not fulfill the terms of the contract.

What is the strict rule of performance in contract law?

• Performance must be substantial

• Performance must be complete and exact

• Performance must be reasonable

• Performance must be partial

Answer explanation

The strict rule of performance in contract law requires that performance must be complete and exact. This means that parties must fulfill their contractual obligations precisely as agreed, without deviations.

In Dakin & Co. v Lee (1916), what was the court's decision regarding substantial performance?

• The builders were not entitled to any payment

• The builders were entitled to full payment

• The builders were entitled to payment minus the cost of poor work

• The builders were entitled to double payment

Answer explanation

In Dakin & Co. v Lee, the court ruled that the builders were entitled to payment, but it would be reduced by the cost of the poor work, reflecting the principle of substantial performance.

What is an actual breach of contract?

• A party anticipates they will not perform

• A party fails to perform their obligations according to the terms

• A party performs their obligations exactly

• A party performs their obligations substantially

Answer explanation

An actual breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform their obligations according to the terms of the agreement. This distinguishes it from merely anticipating non-performance or performing obligations partially.

What are the two options of the innocent party in the context of anticipatory breach?

• Repudiate the contract immediately

• Claim restitition so that any benefits already received are returned

• Wait for the time of agreed performance

• Rescind the contract so parties are restored to their original positions

Answer explanation

In the context of anticipatory breach, the innocent party can choose to repudiate the contract immediately. This allows them to terminate the contract due to the other party's indication of non-performance. Or the innocent party can wait until the time agreed for performance to see the extent of the breach. They can then repudiate the contract if it is a breach of condition and sue for

damages, or sue for damages if it is a breach of warranty.

In Hochester v de la Tour (1853), what was the court's decision regarding anticipatory breach?

• Hochester had to wait until June to repudiate the contract

• Hochester could repudiate the contract immediately

• Hochester could not repudiate the contract

• Hochester had to perform his obligations

Answer explanation

In Hochester v de la Tour, the court ruled that Hochester could repudiate the contract immediately due to the anticipatory breach by the other party, allowing him to seek damages without waiting for the performance date.

What is the duty of the innocent party in the context of anticipatory breach?

• To ignore the breach

• To mitigate their losses

• To increase their losses

• To terminate the contract

Answer explanation

In the context of anticipatory breach, the innocent party has a duty to mitigate their losses. This means they should take reasonable steps to reduce the impact of the breach rather than ignoring it or allowing losses to increase.

In White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962), what did the court allow the claimant to do?

• Cancel the contract

• Affirm the contract and continue with performance

• Terminate the contract immediately

• Sue for damages

Answer explanation

In White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962), the court allowed the claimant to affirm the contract and continue with performance, emphasizing the right to enforce the contract despite the other party's refusal.

What is frustration in contract law?

• A party's failure to perform

• A supervening event making performance impossible or radically different

• A party's refusal to perform

• A party's partial performance

Answer explanation

Frustration in contract law occurs when a supervening event makes performance impossible or radically different, relieving parties from their obligations. This distinguishes it from mere failure or refusal to perform.