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. Question 9 1.5 pts Nelson rents a house and lent his flatmate Rod $5,000 to buy a car. Rod is short of cash to repay the loan so he promises Nelson that he will repay him $4,000 and he will mow the lawns for the next six months. Nelson agrees and accepts the $4,000 which Rod pays by cheque. A month later he rereads the tenancy agreement and discovers that the maintenance of the lawns is the obligation of the landlord, not the tenants/flatmates. Nelson now wants to recover the balance of $1,000 from Rod. What is the legal position? Nelson cannot recover the balance of the debt because there has been accord and satisfaction By banking the cheque Nelson has accepted Rod's offer and thus it is not possible for Nelson to claim the balance of $1,000 unless Rod has not mown the lawns. Nelson can recover the $1,000 because Rod has not given consideration for the release from the full amount of the debt. It was the landlord's obligation to mow the lawns, not the tenant's Nelson can recover the $1,000 owing by Rod because the legal rule is that it is not possible to discharge the full amount of a debt by part payment