{"id":112142,"date":"2023-08-15T10:55:18","date_gmt":"2023-08-15T10:55:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learnexams.com\/blog\/?p=112142"},"modified":"2023-08-15T10:55:21","modified_gmt":"2023-08-15T10:55:21","slug":"gdl-contract-law-university-of-law-2023-2024-actual-exam-250-questions-and-correct-detailed-answers-agrade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/2023\/08\/15\/gdl-contract-law-university-of-law-2023-2024-actual-exam-250-questions-and-correct-detailed-answers-agrade\/","title":{"rendered":"GDL CONTRACT LAW UNIVERSITY OF LAW 2023-2024 ACTUAL EXAM 250 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS |AGRADE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

GDL CONTRACT LAW UNIVERSITY OF LAW 2023-2024
ACTUAL EXAM 250 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED
ANSWERS |AGRADE
Express term: – ANSWER- Is the assistant’s assurance that the pram is
‘perfect for off-road territory’ an express term of the contract?
Relevant factors to consider:
Importance (Bannerman v White)
Timing (Routledge v Mckay)
Expertise (Oscar Chess v Williams, Dick Bentley v Harold Smith
the implied ones are in that statute
Express term: note – ANSWER- when it comes to the expressed terms
point at the fact a shop should have the expert and know the
matter.mAYVE
Schawel v Reade, and same case for not letting him test in the shop
going through sales of act you go through 13 and 12 for what kindof
breach and then to terminate for 14, but if it already supplied as a service
or product then you cannot terminate<\/p>\n\n\n\n

reasonable person s14(2A)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Where negligence is only liability being excluded the clause will pass
the test
White v Warwick [1953]
Alderslade v Hendon Laundry [1945]
E.E.Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Co. [1994]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Persimmon Homes v Ove Arup [2017]
++Construction: Limitation Clauses
Aisla Craig v Malvern Shipping
A clause which limits rather than excludes liability is construed less
restrictively.
++Exemption Clauses and Third Parties
Caselaw:
Scruttons Ltd v Midland Sillicones Ltd [1962]
New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. V A.M Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon)
[1975]
Statute:
Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
s.1(6)- can exempt 3rd parties
s.6(5) – can exempt 3rd parties in contracts for carriage by sea
Notes to clear out construction – ANSWER- Andrews Bros. v Singer
[1934] 1 KB 17
There was a contract to purchase new Singer Cars; the contract
contained a clause excluding “guarantees or warranties, statutory or
otherwise”. One of the cars delivered to the dealer was a used car. The
plaintiff sued Singer (defendants); they tried to rely on the exemption
clause. Held – The stipulation as to the suitability of the car was a
condition, not a guarantee or a warranty, and as such was not covered by
the exemption clause. The term “new singer cars” was an express term.
An exclusion of liability in respect of implied terms could not cover
liability under the express term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is particularly so if there is any ambiguity in the term
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning – ANSWER- -a weeding dress that was
subjected to an exclsuion clause , thus the isssue was Whether the
exclusion of liability clause was binding upon the claimant given that the
service assistant had misrepresented its consequence.
Held
The Court of Appeal found for the claimant, viewing that whilst a party
is typically bound by all the contents of a signed written contract, even
where they had not properly read the contract, a clause ought not be
deemed legally enforceable where the drafting party misrepresents the
effect of a clause to the other party. Thus, the exemption of liability
clause was not deemed properly incorporated into the contract and the
claimant was awarded damages.
Exception when it is not reasonable that the signature shows an
intention to be bound<\/p>\n\n\n\n