Contract law: Vitiating factors - Statistics

Jump to: Answer Stats | Score Distribution | Your Scores

General Stats

This quiz has been taken 1 time
0 since last reset
The average score is 0 of 91

Answer Stats

Hint	Answer	% Correct
Classifications of undue influence	Actual (class 1)	0%
	Analyse remedies	0%
A wife challenged a mortgage based on presumed undue influence and allegations of disadvantage.The court reaffirmed the importance of disadvantage in establishing the presumption, while recognising potential future refinement of the doctrine.	Barclays Bank plc v Coleman [2000]	0%
A husband misled his wife into signing a mortgage that secured his business debts.The court held the transaction voidable because the bank had constructive notice of undue influence and failed to ensure proper safeguards.	Barclays Bank v O’Brien [1994]	0%
C agreed to buy D’s company interest but alleged he did so under death threats.The case established that threats need not be the sole cause of consent for duress to vitiate a contract.	Barton v Armstrong [1976]	0%
A seller’s estimate of land’s sheep-carrying capacity was held to be an honest opinion given the land had never been used for sheep farming.The Privy Council held there was no misrepresentation because the statement was genuinely held and not objectively false.	Bissett v Wilkinson (1927)	0%
A statement of opinion was challenged on the basis that the representor could not reasonably have held it.The court confirmed that an opinion is actionable if it is not genuinely held or if the representor alone knows the true factual position.	Brown v Raphael, (1958)	0%
Reaffirmed that rectification requires proof of an objectively shared intention.	Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes Ltd, (2009)	0%
	Common	0%
Parties contracted for corn believed to be in transit, but it had already been sold before the contract.The court held the contract void for mistake because the subject matter no longer existed at the time of agreement.	Couturier v Hastie, (1856)	0%
	CP Regulations (right to unwind)	0%
An elderly woman signed a property settlement under the threat of being institutionalised.The court held that coerced consent invalidates the agreement, establishing duress in personal pressure cases.	Cumming v Ince (1847)	0%
	Damages	0%
A debtor exploited a creditor’s financial distress to force acceptance of a reduced payment.The court held the agreement invalid due to economic duress, stressing the need for equitable conduct.	D & C Builders v Rees [1966]	0%
Requirements for fraudulent misrep and entitlement to damages knowledge of falsity, lack of belief in truth, or recklessness.	Derry v Peek, (1889)	0%
Property was described as “fully let” even though tenants had already been given notice to quit.The court held there was no actionable misrepresentation because there was no duty to disclose such facts during negotiations.	Dimmock v Hallett (1866)	0%
	Distinguish types of misrep	0%
Damages are all losses flowing from fraud	Doyle v Olby	0%
	Duty to mitigate (representee)	0%
	Economic	0%
Where does the doctrine of undue influence stem from?	Equity	0%
Esso gave an expert forecast of petrol sales that induced the lease, but the forecast was negligently maintained despite major planning changes.The court held Esso liable for negligent misrepresentation or breach of collateral warranty because experts owe a duty of reasonable care when making predictive statements.	Esso Petroleum v Marden (1978)	0%
	Established on facts	0%
Type of common mistake	Existence of subject matter	0%
What type of dealing is it presumed that the intentionwas to contract with the physically present party?	Face to face	0%
What are the actionable misrepresentations?	False statement fact	0%
	False statement opinion	0%
Types of misrep	Fraudulent	0%
Both parties misunderstood the meaning of “feveroles,” but objectively agreed to contract for “horsebeans.”The court refused rectification because the contract already reflected the objective agreement, and rectification cannot be used to create a different bargain.	Frederick E. Rose (London) Ltd v William H. Pim Jnr & Co Ltd, (1953)	0%
To work out ostensible authority:-If a principal (the garage) represents that an agent has authority, and -A third party relies on that representation,	Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964]	0%
Parties contracted under the mistaken belief that a ship was nearby when it was not.The Court of Appeal rejected equitable common mistake and held that common law mistake requires impossibility of performance, which was not satisfied.	Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris, (2002)	0%
Damages for negligent misrepresentation case	Hedley Byrne v Heller	0%
A bank provided a negligent credit reference that the claimant relied upon, but the reference contained a clear disclaimer.The court recognised liability for negligent misstatements where there is an assumption of responsibility, but held that the disclaimer prevented a duty of care from arising.	Hedley Byrne v Heller, (1964)	0%
	Identify actionable misrepresentation	0%
	Identity	0%
Elements of economic duress	Illegitimate pressure	0%
	Impossibility	0%
	Inducement	0%
	Innocent	0%
Silence is not misrepresentation	Keates v Cadogan	0%
	Lapse of time	0%
A painting was mistakenly believed to be by Constable, a fact discovered only years later.The court held that common mistake did not void the contract since the subject matter existed, and rescission was barred due to lapse of time.	Leaf v International Galleries, (1950)	0%
An illiterate guarantor signed a document believing it related solely to a farm purchase when it imposed far wider liability.The court accepted the non est factum defence because the document was fundamentally different from what he reasonably believed.	Lloyds Bank plc v Waterhouse, (1991)	0%
A farmer relied entirely on his bank’s advice when guaranteeing his son’s debts.The court set aside the guarantee, recognising undue influence arising from a trusted relationship abused by the bank.	Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975]	0%
	Loss of profits	0%
	Mistakenly signed	0%
Categories of mistake	Mutual	0%
A wife claimed undue influence after signing a charge to help her husband, but no special relationship or significant disadvantage was found.The case limited presumed undue influence, confirming it requires a relationship of trust and a transaction calling for explanation.	National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985]	0%
	Nature of document	0%
	Need to protest	0%
	Negligent	0%
	Neither party at fault	0%
	No reasonable alternative	0%
Great Peace test for common mistake	No risk allocation	0%
Exceptions to unilateral mistake	Objective ambiguity	0%
A threat to withdraw from a share deal induced a guarantee agreement.The Privy Council held that commercial pressure alone is not duress unless the victim’s will is overborne.	Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979]	0%
An investor claimed he was misled, but he had signed a document explicitly acknowledging full understanding of the investment risks.The court held that there was no inducement and applied contractual estoppel, as the non-reliance clause prevented denial of the agreed factual basis.	Peekay Intermark Ltd v ANZ Banking Group, (2006)	0%
Different kinds of duress	Physical	0%
	Presumed/evidential (class 2)	0%
	Quality	0%
Two ships named Peerless created a fundamental ambiguity because each party referred to a different ship and shipment date.The court held there was no enforceable contract since the objective ambiguity meant no consensus ad idem.	Raffles v Wichelhaus, (1864)	0%
Several wives challenged guarantees given for their husbands’ debts on grounds of undue influence.The House of Lords clarified when the presumption of undue influence arises and imposed a duty on banks to ensure independent legal advice.	RBS v Etridge (No 2) [2001]	0%
Rule	Reasonably foreseeable consequence	0%
Remedies	Recission	0%
Where a material representation is made, it is held that one is induced even if don't carry out own due diligence.	Redgrave v Hurd (1881)	0%
How to raise presumption of UI from Natwest v Morgan	Relationship of trust and confidence	0%
Measures of damages in the tort of deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation)	Remoteness	0%
	Restitutio in integrum/ impossiblility	0%
A car dealer misrepresented the size of a customer’s deposit, inducing a finance agreement.The Court of Appeal held that under s 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967, damages are assessed as in deceit, meaning full losses are recoverable even if unforeseeable.	Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson, (1991)	0%
Statute that says can claim damages for negligent misrepresentation	s2(1) MA	0%
Statute that says only get damages for other types of misrepresentation if equitable	s2(2) MA	0%
What two rules/statutes provide remedy	s2 MA 1967	0%
Exclusion clauses not valid unless satisfy reasonableness test in s11(1) UCTA	s3 MA	0%
An elderly claimant was induced to sign a document different from what she intended but failed to take reasonable care.The House of Lords held that non est factum failed because the mistake was not sufficiently radical and the signer was careless.	Saunders v Anglia Building Society, (1971)	0%
A buyer mistakenly believed he was purchasing old oats, but the seller supplied new oats without making any representation.The rule established that mistake does not void a contract unless induced, and parties are bound by the objective test of agreement.	Smith v Hughes, (1871)	0%
A seller described a tenant as “most desirable” despite knowing he was in serious arrears.The court held this amounted to misrepresentation because an opinion can imply underlying facts known only to the representor.	Smith v Land & House Property Corp, (1884)	0%
Subdivisions of class 2	Special relationship	0%
The group participated in promotional events while knowing a member intended to leave.The court held that this conduct implied a representation of group stability, constituting misrepresentation.	Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV, (2002)	0%
Stages of misrepresentation	term or representation	0%
Parts of a contract that can be mistaken	Terms	0%
	Terms or identity	0%
C falsely claimed insolvency to force renegotiation of a charterparty.The court recognised economic duress in principle but held that insufficient pressure to deprive free choice does not vitiate consent.	The Siboen and The Sibotre [1976]	0%
A trade union blacklisted a ship unless payment was made to a welfare fund.The House of Lords held that money extracted under illegitimate pressure is recoverable, defining modern economic duress.	The Universe Sentinel [1983]	0%
	Third party interests	0%
	Transaction that calls for explanation	0%
	Unilateral	0%
	Unreasonable silence (of other party)	0%
Only type of contract where there IS liability for non disclosure	Utmost good faith	0%
Does recision make contract void or voidable?	Voidable	0%
When will you lose the right to rescind?	Waiver by affirmation	0%
Misrepresentation by omission or half truth	With v O'Flanagan	0%

Score Distribution

Percent of People with Each Score

Percentile by Number Answered

Your Score History

You have not taken this quiz since the last reset

Countries of the World Quiz

US States Quiz

Countries in World War II

MLB Baseball Teams Quiz

Top World Languages

Biggest Cities in the World

Original 151 Pokémon

Two Letter U.S. State Abbreviations

Mythical Creatures Quiz #1