Question 2 1.5 pts Lisa signed a document she did not read because she had lost her glasses. She thought it was a guarantee to support a loan that her husband Chuck needed for his business. In fact it was an agreement to sell her house to Brian. Brian has paid the purchase price to Chuck who has run off with his girlfriend abandoning Lisa. Lisa now discovers the true position and wants to get her house back. On these facts Lisa has no realistic prospect of success in any of these other options and will not be able to recover her house. Lisa can claim that the document was misrepresented to her by Chuck and can have it set aside under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. Lisa can claim she was unduly influenced to enter the contract by her husband Chuck and have the contract set aside Lisa can have the agreement set aside alleging non est factum as the document she signed was radically different in character and effect from what was explained to her. Question 3 1.5 pts Which one of the following is CORRECT? To be counted as sufficient consideration for a promise, the promisee must do something or otherwise provide some benefit to the promisor; If Tweddle v Atkinson (1861] 1 B&S 393, were decided today in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the groom would not be successful in a legal claim for breach of the promise made by the bride's father, one reason being that the groom provided no consideration for that promise; A party to a contract can never enforce a promise by the other party to pay more than the sum originally agreed unless that promise is supported by consideration or that promise is in the form of a deed; The Rule in Lester Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 can apply to part payment in satisfaction of a debt if the creditor and debtor anticipate an ongoing business relationship after the agreement by the creditor to accept a lesser sum is made. Question 7 1.5 pts Which of these statements regarding misrepresentation in terms of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 is accurate? It is necessary to prove that the representor intended to mislead the representee. The representee cannot sue for a misrepresentation unless they have taken reasonable steps to investigate the truth of the statement but if they have not had the opportunity to investigate they may sue. It must be reasonable for the representee to have been induced to enter the contract by the misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is actionable regardless of whether the representee acted on it so long as the statement is inaccurate. Question 10 1.5 pts Barbara signs a written contract to buy goods from Steve. The contract has an exclusion clause which states: "All statutory conditions, warranties and liabilities on the part of the seller, are hereby excluded." Which of the following statements is correct? The clause is incorporated under the signing rule in common law, and is hence effective to exclude Steve's liabilities under all statutes, including the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. The prerequisite to Steve's right to rely on the clause is that Steve has explained the clause to Barbara before the contract is signed. If Steve has not done that, he will not be protected by the clause. The clause will exclude Steve's liabilities that may arise under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and also liabilities (e.g.for negligence) that may arise under the common law. The clause will exclude Steven's liabilities that may arise under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, but not liabilities (e.g.for negligence) that may arise under the common law