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 4 1.5 pts Hans buys a second hand rice cooker on Trade Me from Gretel who is moving flats and wants to get rid of her unwanted electrical appliances. A week after taking delivery of the rice cooker it explodes and sets fire to Hans' kitchen. What is Hans' legal position? Hans has no claim under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. Hans has a claim under the Fair Trading Act 1986 because Gretel has implied the rice cooker is safe when it is not which amounts to misleading or deceptive behaviour. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 Hans can ask for his money back because the cooker is unsafe but cannot claim for the damage caused by the fire. Hans has a claim under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 because the rice cooker is unsafe. He can claim for the damage to his kitchen and ask for his money back