Miscellaneous Quiz / Pre-Contractual Relations Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Pre-Contractual Relations Cases?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Forced Order
Also try: The First Three II
Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/54 Timer 20:00
HintAnswer
An act or forbearance of the one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable
Consideration means something which is of some value in the eye of the law, moving from the plaintiff
A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses, it must be sufficient but not adequate
A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment loss or responsibility
Reciprocal exchange is a necessary element of consideration
US - voluntarily abstaining from legal rights on promises of future benefit can constitute valid consideration
Going beyond an existing existing legal duty is valid consideration, ('happy and well looked after')
Natural affection is not good consideration for a court to enforce a contract
Preserving amicable relations is not good consideration for a court to enforce a contract
A promise to enforce a claim known to be invalid does not equal good consideration
A promise to give up a claim that one has reasonable belief in, is valid and non-frivolous is good consideration for a contract
Although consideration need not be adequate , an unconscionable bargain will be set aside in a Court of Equity
An existing public duty cannot be used as consideration for a new promise
An act that goes beyond an existing public or occupational duty is good consideration
Where an individual is bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty cannot be considered valid consideration for a new contract
If the nature of a new duty goes beyond an existing contractual duty, then it is good consideration for a new promise.
Consideration can be provided by a party conferring a benefit on the other (e.g. by helping them avoid a penalty clause)
Part payment of debt - 'payment of a lesser sum on the day cannot be any satisfaction of the whole'
Part payment is not good consideration for promise to enforce full amount unless made a) before the due date or; b) with a chattel or; c) to a different destination
Even where there is practical benefit to accepting a lesser amount in payment of a debt, this is not sufficient consideration to find a binding contract
Performance of an existing contractual duty is valid consideration if it is for a third party
Paid twice for same job because performance of existing contractual duty owed to a third party is valid consideration for a new promise
If a person other than the promisee is to provide the consideration, the promisee cannot enforce the contract (two fathers and a groom)
Past consideration is not good consideration; a sale cannot be consideration for a promise made subsequently
A promise made after consideration has been performed is not good consideration
A benefit voluntarily conferred in the past is not good consideration for an express promise
A promise made after performance can only be enforced if it was understood by the parties that there will be some kind reward prior to the performance
HintAnswer
The act must have been done at the promisors request; must have understood the act was to be remunerated; payment must be legally enforceable had it been made in advance
When one intentionally influences another to alter their position, it would be inequitable to permit the promisor to resist payment on the grounds of no consideration
If no consideration doctrine of estoppel may help promisee enforce promise, if he has acted on promise to his detriment
Estoppel by representation does not apply where the representation is of the intention of the parties, rather than a state of facts
A promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon and in fact acted on is binding so far as its terms properly apply
Estoppel is only a defence, not a cause of action where one did not exist before, must be an underlying cause of action
Substitute agreements are only enforceable without consideration if inequitable agreement to pay more, which was voluntarily accepted and relied upon by debtor
Promissory estoppel can extinguish legal rights where a promise to reduce periodic payments because of pressing circumstances which won't persist has been made
A waiver can be withdrawn on reasonable notice
If the effect of resiling is sufficiently inequitable, a debtor may show that the right to recover a debt is not merely postponed, but extinguished
Detrimental reliance is not a requirement of promissory estoppel. It must only be established that the promisor has changed their position
If a promise is implied in negotiations and a party relies on it, it is inequitable to allow the other party to act as though the promise does not exist
If a donee relies upon a donors promise with the donors knowledge, expending money in furtherance, the donor must complete the conveyance
If an owner requests or allows another to spend money on land under an expectation created by a landlord that they will be able to remain there, the owner must convey the land
If an owner indicates to another they will convey a right over land to them, and they rely on this to their detriment, the land must be conveyed
If an owner makes a promise not to insist on strict legal rights knowing another will and does act on it, then he cannot go back on that promise, even if there is no consideration
Proportionality lies at the heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and permeates its every application
Proprietary estoppel must involve a promise relating to rights over land or other property, but need not relate to any specific property
Proprietary estoppel - must be clear what interest the claimant is to get and no relief if claimant knows it is 'subject to contract'
Estoppel by convention is where both parties are mistaken as to the meaning of the contract, thereby replacing the original terms on a conventional basis
There is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement, when the agreement is domestic in nature
Where an agreement is formed after two spouses are separated, it is generally considered they intend to be bound by their agreement
Whether parties intended to enter into legally binding relations is an issue to be determined objectively and not by inquiring into their respective states of mind
An oral agreement to a collateral contract intended to be acted on creates a binding agreement that overrides any usual exceptions
A 'letter of comfort' has no legal effect when a party has already expressed intent not to be legally bound
An assertion by a seller of the nature, quality or quantity of the goods the buyer might regard as expressing contractual intention and relied upon creates a collateral contract
A collateral contract can exist even when there was no contract specified at the time the promise was made

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras

Top Quizzes Today


Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.