NEW
Font size
WorksheetsContract Misrep Fraud Mistake
Total questions: 20
Worksheet time: 17mins
In Bisset v Wilkinson, the judgement was made by Privy Council, which held that the purchaser has the right to rescind the contract.
True
False
The principle of caveat emptor places heavier burden on the seller rather than on the buyer.
True
False
Choose the case which are the odd ones:
Keates v Lord Cardogan
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
Smith v Hughes
With v O'Flanagan
These cases relate to 'reliance' under misrepresentation, EXCEPT:
Tan Chye Chew v Eastern Mining Metals Co Ltd
Attwood v Small
Wei Tah Construction (B) Co Sdn Bhd v Lau Wun Ing
Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering Sdn Bhd
Fraudulent misrepresentation is exactly equivalent to fraud under Contracts Act 1950.
True
False
The case of Bounty Dynamics Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Media Development Sdn Bhd) v Chow Tat Ming & 175 Ors [2016] 1 MLJ 507 is an example of wholly innocent misrepresentation.
True
False
Indemnity and damages could be both claimed in cases relating to fraudulent misrepresentation.
True
False
In Abdul Razak bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 MLJ 500, the purpose of damages is to restore the victim to the position he occupied before the representation had been made.
True
False
All the following cases relate to fraud, EXCEPT:
Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu [1997] 2 MLJ 45
MUI Plaza Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong Bank Bhd (No 2) [1998] 7 MLJ 122
Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd v Balakrishnan a/l Devaraj & Anor [2011] 5 MLJ 309
Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong [1983] 2 MLJ 322
All the followings are remedies for FRAUD, except:
S. 19 and 20 Contracts Act 1950.
S. 30 Specific Relief Act (SRA) 1950.
S. 34(1)(a) Specific Relief Act (SRA) 1950.
S. 65, 66 and 67 Contracts Act 1950.
If a case of mistake is proved, the contract is considered voidable.
True
False
In Malaysia, the category of mutual mistake could be found in S.30 of Specific Relief Act.
True
False
The following circumstances will render the contract VOID, except:
mistake as to the identity of the subject matter
mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the agreement
mistake as to the possibility of performing the agreement
mistake as to the quality of the subject matter
Choose a case which does not illustrate the position of mistake with regards to quality of subject matter.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
Sheikh Brothers Ltd v Ochsner [1957] AC 136
Kennedy v Panama, etc Royal Mail Co Ltd [1867] LR 2 QB 580
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1931] All ER 1
The case of Foo Lian Sin & Anor v Ng Chun Lin & Anor [2006] 1 MLJ 457 is an example the circumstance of unilateral mistake, rather than mutual mistake.
True
False
"The defendant cannot rely on the doctrine of common mistake to render the contract void in the present case when clearly the mistake was a direct result of the defendant's own wrongdoing." This is the observation by the court in the case of?
Hamzah bin Abdul Majid v Khairuddin bin Zainal [2017] MLJU 149
Kennedy v Panama, etc Royal Mail Co Ltd [1867] LR 2 QB 580
Galloway v Galloway (1914) 30 TLR 531
Ho Weng On & Anor v Bindev Sdn Bhd [2007] 7 MLJ 607
In Cundy v Lindsay, there was an operative mistake and hence there was no enforceable contract in existence, whereas in King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd, the plaintiffs had made a mistake as to the identity and also to credit-worthiness of the other contracting party, ‘Hallam & Co’.
True
False
By virtue of S.22 Contracts Act 1950, a contract which is affected by mistake with regards to foreign but is not essential to the agreement, the contract will be void.
True
False
"There is a valid contract despite the mistake, as the subject matter only differs in some quality, not substance." --This is the observation by the Court in the case of:
Falck v Williams [1900] AC 176
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
Galloway v Galloway (1914) 30 TLR 531
Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243
Choose the CORRECT statement:
Legal remedies for a contract affected by operative mistake are rescission, damages and rectification of a written document.
If the fraud is proved, the victim is entitled to claim for damages, rescission and indemnity.
Section 23 of Contracts Act 1950 does not clearly embrace the situation of mistake with regards to identity of the contracting parties
In the case of Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd v Balakrishnan a/l Devaraj & Anor [2011] 5 MLJ 309, the sale and purchase agreement for the property was ordered to be set aside for innocent misrepresentation even it had been completed by conveyance and payment of the purchase price.
