Question text

Many people prefer to eat at a restaurant occasionally. At the time of placing their order, no one asks them to confirm whether they have money to pay for their meal nor do people make a promise to pay for the meal. Still, everyone ends up paying for the meal they eat without any question. There appears to be a secret force which ensures that the payment is made. Which of the following legal concepts refers to that secret force?

Select one:

a.There is no contract in this case.

b.Void Contract.

c.Implied contract.

d.Quasi Contract.

Question text

An exclusion clause brought to the notice of the other party after the contract is concluded is:

Select one:

a.effective if it is clearly stated and brought to the knowledge of the party.

b.treated as a fraud.

c.not effective as it is brought to the notice of the other party after the other party has entered into a contract.

d.effective if there was an intention to deceive the party by misrepresenting the clause.

Question text

Pears Ltd accepts an order from Mango Plc for the supply of a consignment of fruit. The contract is made orally over the telephone. There is no discussion of the quality of the fruit. When the consignment arrives at Mango's premises, most of it has gone off. Can Mango sue Pears for breach of contract?

Select one:

a.

Yes, because it would have been an implied term of the contract that the fruit should be of satisfactory quality on delivery

b.

No, because Mango should have looked out for itself and ensured that there was a written contract which said that the fruit needed to be in good condition

c.

Yes, because it was an express term of the contract that the fruit should be of satisfactory quality on delivery

d.

No, because the contract should have been in writing

Question text

Humpty owes Dumpty $10000. On discovering that Dumpty is in need of money to finance his visit to Europe, Humpty offers to pay $6000 in full settlement of his debt. Dumpty agrees to accept $6000 but on returning from his visit, claims the remaining $4000. Will Dumpty succeed in his claim?

Select one:

a.

No, because the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply.

b.

Yes, a promise to accept payment of a smaller sum of money than owed is not enforceable in the above scenario.

c.

Yes, but only if Humpty agrees to make payment of remaining amount

d.

No, because Humpty's payment is in full settlement of the debt.

Question text

Rowen Realtor showed a house to Blair Buyer, who was impressed and determined that it met all of her stated specifications. While touring the home, Blair asked Rowen whether the house had ever been treated for termites. Rowen, knowing that the house was infested with termites five years ago, swiftly changed the topic of conversation to the idyllic neighborhood surrounding the home. Blair's focus quickly shifted, as she assumed there was no termite problem of which she should be concerned. Did Rowen have a duty to disclose the termite infection to Blair Buyer?

Select one:

a.No, Rowan is not the owner of the house, so Rowan is under no obligation to disclose the termite history of the house.

b.No, there are no termites currently so there is no obligation to disclose the history of infestation.

c.Yes, without the response from Rowen, Blair is likely to assume that there are no termites.

d.Yes, five years is not a long period. He could have legally avoided the question had it been fifteen years