Question 6 1.5 pts When Marge bought a pedigree hamster at an auction she was asked to sign a document by the seller after the fall of the hammer. She was told that it was a notification of change of ownership of the hamster to the International Federation of Hamster Breeders. Unknown to her the documents contained an exclusion clause stating that the seller was not liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 or the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 if the hamster was defective in any way. The hamster was later found to be suffering from a congenital heart defect and had to be put down. The seller: Can rely on the exclusion clause to deny liability because Marge is deemed to have knowledge of the terms and conditions under the principle in L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2KB 394 as she signed the document. Cannot rely on the exclusion clause because Marge did not read it. Can rely on the clause to avoid liability because Marge is a professional hamster breeder and as such the seller can exclude liability under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 as long as the agreement is in writing. Cannot rely on the clause because the terms and conditions are not part of the contract. 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 8 1.5 pts Todd had a contract with Blake to deliver 1,000 widgets. 800 were delivered in time for the pre-Xmas sales rush but 200 were delivered after Xmas. They had to be sold in a New Year sale. Todd has yet to pay for the widgets and refuses to do so as he claims Blake promised that he would deliver the widgets before Xmas. Blake disputes this. He says he promised only that he would do his best to deliver them before Xmas. Todd emails Blake and says, In full and final satisfaction of the debt I am today depositing $5,000 into your account." Blake reads the email, immediately checks his bank account online and sees that Todd has in fact deposited the $5,000 in his account. $2,500 remains unpaid. Which statement best describes Blake's legal position? Blake cannot claim the balance because he has received $5,000 which constitutes a practical benefit thus discharging the debt. Blake can claim the balance because there has been no accord even if there is satisfaction. He cannot claim the balance because the debt has been extinguished by the operation of accord and satisfaction. The money has been deposited in Blake's account constituting accord; giving up the right to dispute the debt where there is a genuine dispute constitutes satisfaction. Blake can claim the balance because if the dispute went to court Todd would be unable to prove his claim that the delivery was promised by Xmas. Therefore, giving up the right to dispute the debt does not constitute consideration because the court would have decided against Todd
