Question 1

In which of the following cases was the plaintiff successful on the basis of promissory estoppel?

Accepted Answer

A)  East Van Villages v Minister Administrating the National Parks and Wildlife [2001] NSWSC 559. 
B)  Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101. 
C)  Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfservice Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582. 
D)  None of the above. 
A)  East Van Villages v Minister Administrating the National Parks and Wildlife [2001] NSWSC 559. 
B)  Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101. 
C)  Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfservice Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582. 
D)  None of the above. B

Question 2

The claim for higher wages was successful in Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471 because:

Accepted Answer

A)  There was a commercial benefit to the defendant. 
B)  Performance went beyond what was originally promised. 
C)  The promisor derived an additional benefit. 
D)  Completion as originally promised saved the defendant additional cost. 
A)  There was a commercial benefit to the defendant. 
B)  Performance went beyond what was originally promised. 
C)  The promisor derived an additional benefit. 
D)  Completion as originally promised saved the defendant additional cost. B

Question 3

The effect of the rules of consideration is that the law can only be used to enforce bargains, but it cannot be used to enforce promised gifts. Is this distinction between gifts and bargains a fair one?

Accepted Answer

The distinction between gifts and bargains in the rules of consideration is a fair one. Consideration is a fundamental principle in contract law, and it refers to the exchange of something of value between parties to a contract. In a bargain, both parties are exchanging something of value, such as money for goods or services. In this case, the law can enforce the bargain because both parties have given something in exchange for the promise.

On the other hand, a promised gift does not involve an exchange of something of value. In this situation, the law cannot enforce the promise because there is no consideration given in return for the promise. This distinction is fair because it reflects the basic principle of contract law that there must be a mutual exchange of value for a promise to be enforceable.

Furthermore, allowing the enforcement of promised gifts without consideration could lead to potential abuse and manipulation. It could create a situation where individuals make promises of gifts with no intention of fulfilling them, knowing that they cannot be legally enforced. This could lead to unfair and unjust outcomes for the party expecting the gift.

In conclusion, the distinction between gifts and bargains in the rules of consideration is fair and necessary to uphold the principles of contract law. It ensures that contracts are based on mutual exchange and prevents potential abuse of the legal system.

Question 4

A promise to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction of a greater sum will be enforceable if it is contained in a deed.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 5

In which case did the court decide that performance of an existing contractual duty by a group of sailors was not good consideration for the captain's promise to pay extra wages?

Accepted Answer

A)  Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270. 
B)  Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317. 
C)  Roscorla v Thomas [1842] 3 QB 234. 
D)  Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471. 
A)  Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270. 
B)  Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317. 
C)  Roscorla v Thomas [1842] 3 QB 234. 
D)  Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471.

Question 6

The plaintiff in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 was unable to enforce the defendant's promise because:

Accepted Answer

A)  The promise had been made to Dew & Co. 
B)  There was no privity of contract between Dunlop and Selfridge. 
C)  Dunlop had given Selfridge no consideration. 
D)  All of the above. 
A)  The promise had been made to Dew & Co. 
B)  There was no privity of contract between Dunlop and Selfridge. 
C)  Dunlop had given Selfridge no consideration. 
D)  All of the above.

Question 7

To what extent has the doctrine of promissory estoppel made the requirement that all simple contracts be supported by consideration irrelevant?

Accepted Answer

The questi

Question 8

Consideration must be:

Accepted Answer

A)  Valuable, adequate and sufficient. 
B)  Valuable and either adequate or sufficient. 
C)  Valuable and adequate, but need not be sufficient. 
D)  Valuable and sufficient, but need not be adequate. 
A)  Valuable, adequate and sufficient. 
B)  Valuable and either adequate or sufficient. 
C)  Valuable and adequate, but need not be sufficient. 
D)  Valuable and sufficient, but need not be adequate.

Question 9

The rule in Foakes v Beer was not applied in Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 because:

Accepted Answer

A)  The payment was accepted by the creditor. 
B)  The debt was paid by a third party. 
C)  The debt was paid with interest. 
D)  The debt was paid in full. 
A)  The payment was accepted by the creditor. 
B)  The debt was paid by a third party. 
C)  The debt was paid with interest. 
D)  The debt was paid in full.

Question 10

Estoppel was rejected Easts Van Villages v Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife [2001] NSWSC 559 because:

Accepted Answer

A)  The plaintiff had not suffered any detriment. 
B)  The defendant's statement was not unambiguous. 
C)  Estoppel was not rejected. 
D)  The parties had equal bargaining power. 
A)  The plaintiff had not suffered any detriment. 
B)  The defendant's statement was not unambiguous. 
C)  Estoppel was not rejected. 
D)  The parties had equal bargaining power.

Question 11

The decision in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1998) 164 CLR 387 is significant because:

Accepted Answer

A)  Promissory estoppel was applied where there was no pre-existing contract. 
B)  Promissory estoppel was used to commence an action. 
C)  Promissory estoppel was applied in Australia. 
D)  All of the above. 
A)  Promissory estoppel was applied where there was no pre-existing contract. 
B)  Promissory estoppel was used to commence an action. 
C)  Promissory estoppel was applied in Australia. 
D)  All of the above.

Question 12

Simple contracts must contain a bargain.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

Which of the following is the best example of executory consideration?

Accepted Answer

A)  A pays B $10.00 today in return for B giving A a book today. 
B)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book tomorrow. 
C)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book yesterday. 
D)  All of the above. 
A)  A pays B $10.00 today in return for B giving A a book today. 
B)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book tomorrow. 
C)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book yesterday. 
D)  All of the above.

Question 14

Which of the following is NOT one of the criteria which must be satisfied in order for 'past' consideration to be enforceable?

Accepted Answer

A)  At the time the past consideration was provided, the parties understood that it would be remunerated. 
B)  The past consideration was identified after the promisor made their promise. 
C)  The promise would have been enforceable if it had been promised in advance of the past consideration. 
D)  The past consideration was provided at the promisor's request. 
A)  At the time the past consideration was provided, the parties understood that it would be remunerated. 
B)  The past consideration was identified after the promisor made their promise. 
C)  The promise would have been enforceable if it had been promised in advance of the past consideration. 
D)  The past consideration was provided at the promisor's request.

Question 15

Consideration must be present or future, it cannot be past.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

Which case is authority for the principle that a promise made after an act is not supported by consideration?

Accepted Answer

A)  Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105; 80 ER 255. 
B)  Anderson v Glass [1869] 5 WW&A'B(L) 152. 
C)  Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847. 
D)  Roscorla v Thomas [1842] 3 QB 234. 
A)  Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105; 80 ER 255. 
B)  Anderson v Glass [1869] 5 WW&A'B(L) 152. 
C)  Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847. 
D)  Roscorla v Thomas [1842] 3 QB 234.

Question 17

Which of the following would NOT amount to sufficient consideration?

Accepted Answer

A)  A promise to give the creditor a book worth $100 in exchange for a full discharge from a debt of $200. 
B)  A used postage stamp. 
C)  A promise to give $100 to one party's daughter in exchange for a promise to provide services to the value of $300 to the other party. 
D)  A promise to pay $100 in exchange for a promise to fully discharge the debtor from the obligation to pay the balance of the debt of $200 owing to the creditor. 
A)  A promise to give the creditor a book worth $100 in exchange for a full discharge from a debt of $200. 
B)  A used postage stamp. 
C)  A promise to give $100 to one party's daughter in exchange for a promise to provide services to the value of $300 to the other party. 
D)  A promise to pay $100 in exchange for a promise to fully discharge the debtor from the obligation to pay the balance of the debt of $200 owing to the creditor.

Question 18

In which case did the court decide that, while performance of an existing legal duty by police officers was not good consideration for a mine owner's promise to pay, performance beyond what they were legally required to do was good consideration?

Accepted Answer

A)  Anderson v Glass [1869] 5 WW&AB(L) 152. 
B)  Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270. 
C)  Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317. 
D)  Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471. 
A)  Anderson v Glass [1869] 5 WW&AB(L) 152. 
B)  Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270. 
C)  Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317. 
D)  Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471.

Question 19

Which of the following is the best example of executed consideration?

Accepted Answer

A)  A pays B $10.00 today in return for B giving A a book today. 
B)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book tomorrow. 
C)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book yesterday. 
D)  All of the above. 
A)  A pays B $10.00 today in return for B giving A a book today. 
B)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book tomorrow. 
C)  A promises to pay B $10.00 tomorrow in return for B giving A a book yesterday. 
D)  All of the above.

Question 20

The promisee is the person undertaking the promise.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Exam 10: Consideration

In which of the following cases was the plaintiff successful on the basis of promissory estoppel?

The claim for higher wages was successful in Hartley v Ponsonby (1871) 119 ER 1471 because:

The effect of the rules of consideration is that the law can only be used to enforce bargains, but it cannot be used to enforce promised gifts. Is this distinction between gifts and bargains a fair one?

A promise to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction of a greater sum will be enforceable if it is contained in a deed.

In which case did the court decide that performance of an existing contractual duty by a group of sailors was not good consideration for the captain's promise to pay extra wages?

The plaintiff in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 was unable to enforce the defendant's promise because:

To what extent has the doctrine of promissory estoppel made the requirement that all simple contracts be supported by consideration irrelevant?

Consideration must be:

The rule in Foakes v Beer was not applied in Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 because:

Estoppel was rejected Easts Van Villages v Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife [2001] NSWSC 559 because:

The decision in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1998) 164 CLR 387 is significant because:

Simple contracts must contain a bargain.

Which of the following is the best example of executory consideration?

Which of the following is NOT one of the criteria which must be satisfied in order for 'past' consideration to be enforceable?

Consideration must be present or future, it cannot be past.

Which case is authority for the principle that a promise made after an act is not supported by consideration?

Which of the following would NOT amount to sufficient consideration?

In which case did the court decide that, while performance of an existing legal duty by police officers was not good consideration for a mine owner's promise to pay, performance beyond what they were legally required to do was good consideration?

Which of the following is the best example of executed consideration?

The promisee is the person undertaking the promise.

Legal Foundations

Origins of Australian Law

Legal Systems

How Law Is Made: Precedentstatute Law

Civil Liability: The Law of Torts and Negligence

Applications of Negligence to Business

Introduction to Contracts

Agreement Between the Parties

Intention to Create Legal Relations

Capacity of the Parties

Genuine Consent

Is the Contract Legal

Terms of the Contract

Rights and Liabilities of the Parties, Discharge and Remedies

Remedies in Contract

Statutory Consumer Guarantees and the Australian Consumer Law

General and Specific Consumer Protections Under the Acl

Agency

Introduction to Companies and Incorporated Associations

Partnerships

Choosing a Business Entity

Other Business-Related Torts

Insurance

Sale of Goods

Electronic commerce

Property and mortgages

Intellectual propert

Ethics and business practice

Criminal law in a business context

Restrictive trade practices

Negotiable instruments

Insolvency and Debt Recovery

The Work Environment and the Employment Relationship

Consumer Credit and Privacy

Ethics and Regulations in Marketing and Advertising

Filters