Exam 11: Interpretation
Exam 1: Objectivity in Contract Law6 Questions
Exam 2: Formation of Bilateral Contracts8 Questions
Exam 3: Formation of Unilateral Contracts5 Questions
Exam 4: Contract As an Agreement8 Questions
Exam 5: Identity of Offeror and Offeree8 Questions
Exam 6: Consideration and Promissory Estoppel8 Questions
Exam 7: Intention to Create Legal Relations6 Questions
Exam 8: Contracts Requiring Writing7 Questions
Exam 9: Third Parties10 Questions
Exam 10: Identifying the Terms of a Contract8 Questions
Exam 11: Interpretation6 Questions
Exam 12: Implication7 Questions
Exam 13: Rectification8 Questions
Exam 14: The Control of Exclusion Clauses and Unfair Terms7 Questions
Exam 15: Misrepresentation8 Questions
Exam 16: Duress7 Questions
Exam 17: Undue Influence6 Questions
Exam 18: Unconscionable Bargains and Inequality of Bargaining Power4 Questions
Exam 19: Good Faith4 Questions
Exam 20: Capacity8 Questions
Exam 21: Common Mistake: Contracts Void for Failure of a Basic Contractual Assumption8 Questions
Exam 22: Frustration: Contracts Discharged for Failure of a Basic Contractual Assumption8 Questions
Exam 23: Conditions, Warranties, and Innominate Terms8 Questions
Exam 24: Anticipatory Breach of Contract6 Questions
Exam 25: Compensatory Damages7 Questions
Exam 26: Agreed Remedies5 Questions
Exam 27: Remedies Beyond Compensatory Damages8 Questions
Select questions type
Which of the following are criticisms of Lord Hoffmann's approach to interpretation in cases such as Investors Compensation Scheme and Chartbrook? Please select all that apply.
Free
(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(35)
Correct Answer:
A,B,C
Following Arnold v Britton, it is unlikely that the courts will refuse to give effect to unambiguous contractual language simply because its meaning does not accord with commercial common sense.
Free
(True/False)
4.9/5
(30)
Correct Answer:
True
How has Lord Hoffmann's statement in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd that there is no limit to the amount of correction a court is allowed to make in respect of a contract been undermined by the Supreme Court judgment in Arnold v Britton?
Free
(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(32)
Correct Answer:
A
A key difference between pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct is that the former is excluded from the scope of the 'factual matrix' whereas the latter is not.
(True/False)
4.8/5
(33)
It is possible for a court to order a narrowing of the scope of the 'factual matrix' in order to prevent third parties to a contract from being unfairly prejudiced.
(True/False)
5.0/5
(47)
Which of the following is not one of the principles regarding interpretation set out by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society?
(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(33)
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)