ACCT 252 FINAL EXAM (LATEST UPDATE) REAL
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS |100% CORRECT |
ALREADY GRADED A
In contract, damages are awarded to...... Ans✓✓✓place the aggrieved
party in the position that would have been occupied had the contract
been performed as agreed.
Are exemplary damages available in contract in England? (answer+case)
Ans✓✓✓No, Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth
Are exemplary damages available in contract in New Zealand?
(answer+case) Ans✓✓✓No, Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International
Ltd
Why were exemplary damages available in Tak & Co Inc v AEL Corp
Ltd (1995)? What is the legal significance of this case today? Ans✓✓✓a
'fine for dishonest behaviour' - knowingly deceitful conduct. This has
been overruled by Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd
Nominal Damages Ans✓✓✓small, token sums of money awarded to
acknowledge the existence of the breach and to express the court's
general disapproval of such behaviour
Common law rules determining whether and what extent of loss has
been suffered (damages, 4) Ans✓✓✓a) damages may not be too remote
b) damages are only compensatory
,c) loss must be mitigated
d) damages may be pre-agreed by the parties
Damages may not be too remote, principle first enunciated in....(case +
fact pattern and result) Ans✓✓✓Hadley v Baxendale (1854) plaintiffs
engaged the defendant carrier to take a broken crankshaft to Greenwich
to be used as a pattern for a new one. Carrier promised it would be there
the next day. Crankshaft delayed in transit. Replacement late & mill out
of commission, owners claimed damages for loss of profit. Action failed.
Carrier had not been told mill would be inoperative until new crankshaft
obtained. Millers might have had a spare, not reasonable to hold him
responsible for loss of profit.
Damages are only recoverable for those losses which: (2) Ans✓✓✓arise
naturally from the breach or in the usual course of things, or are
reasonably contemplated by both parties through knowledge of special
circumstances at the time when they made the contract. Hadley v
Baxendale
van Kleef v Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co - On remoteness,
reasonable foreseeability is just the starting point Ans✓✓✓In DC, K
was awarded $16K repair costs. cancellation of insurance was unlawful
and a breach of contract. Claimed $33K (value of vehicle), as repairer
had sold the vehicle when K had been unable to pay. Held: reasonably
foreseeable that refusal to pay the repair costs was likely to occasion
some financial strain, but not the total loss and financial consequences
that followed. on remoteness reasonable foreseeability is usually the
starting point, but not the end of the matter. Opening inquiry should seek
to establish a just balance between the parties.
,doctrine of privity Ans✓✓✓only an original party to a contract may
sue/be sued on it
benefit aspect (definition + case) Ans✓✓✓Tweedle v Atkinson. A third
party cannot sue to obtain benefits conferred to them in a contract
burden aspect (definition + case) Ans✓✓✓A third party cannot be made
subject to liabilities or restrictions under the contract. Dunlop Pneumatic
Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 has what effect on the doctrine of privity?
Ans✓✓✓applies to benefit only in contracts after 1 April 1983 &
provides rights and obligations to beneficiaries subject to s4
Parol Evidence Rule Ans✓✓✓When a contract is reduced to writing the
contract is proved by production of the written contract.
Other evidence which would have the effect of adding to or varying the
contract in any way is not admissible
Tak & Co Inc v AEL Corp Ltd application of parol evidence rule
Ans✓✓✓Tak imported livestock into Japan under terms set out in a pro
forma invoice.
AEL alleged the invoices not what was agreed to; there were
"understandings" which were not confirmed in the invoices.
, Held: The invoices were the entire relevant contract.
Terms of the contract are: Ans✓✓✓Every promise that was intended to
be legally enforceable as part of the contractual obligation.
The test of whether a term was intended to be binding: Ans✓✓✓The test
of Contractual intention is objective. Would a reasonable person have
determined from the parties words and actions that what was said was
intended to become binding?
Henderson v Arthur [1907] 1 KB 10 - parole evidence rule Ans✓✓✓An
oral agreement for the lease of a theatre was followed by a formal
contract.
Formal contract provided for payment of rent in advance; the defendant
argued oral agreement - rent payable by post-dated bill of exchange.
Defendant not permitted to give evidence of previous oral agreement. It
contradicted the express terms of the written lease and the later, written
expression of intention had to be preferred.
The rules of interpretation (6) Ans✓✓✓
The 'factual matrix' is intended to assist in.... Ans✓✓✓the 'objective'
interpretation of contracts by providing a 'context'. If there is no clear
meaning or if a term is ambiguous
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS |100% CORRECT |
ALREADY GRADED A
In contract, damages are awarded to...... Ans✓✓✓place the aggrieved
party in the position that would have been occupied had the contract
been performed as agreed.
Are exemplary damages available in contract in England? (answer+case)
Ans✓✓✓No, Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth
Are exemplary damages available in contract in New Zealand?
(answer+case) Ans✓✓✓No, Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International
Ltd
Why were exemplary damages available in Tak & Co Inc v AEL Corp
Ltd (1995)? What is the legal significance of this case today? Ans✓✓✓a
'fine for dishonest behaviour' - knowingly deceitful conduct. This has
been overruled by Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd
Nominal Damages Ans✓✓✓small, token sums of money awarded to
acknowledge the existence of the breach and to express the court's
general disapproval of such behaviour
Common law rules determining whether and what extent of loss has
been suffered (damages, 4) Ans✓✓✓a) damages may not be too remote
b) damages are only compensatory
,c) loss must be mitigated
d) damages may be pre-agreed by the parties
Damages may not be too remote, principle first enunciated in....(case +
fact pattern and result) Ans✓✓✓Hadley v Baxendale (1854) plaintiffs
engaged the defendant carrier to take a broken crankshaft to Greenwich
to be used as a pattern for a new one. Carrier promised it would be there
the next day. Crankshaft delayed in transit. Replacement late & mill out
of commission, owners claimed damages for loss of profit. Action failed.
Carrier had not been told mill would be inoperative until new crankshaft
obtained. Millers might have had a spare, not reasonable to hold him
responsible for loss of profit.
Damages are only recoverable for those losses which: (2) Ans✓✓✓arise
naturally from the breach or in the usual course of things, or are
reasonably contemplated by both parties through knowledge of special
circumstances at the time when they made the contract. Hadley v
Baxendale
van Kleef v Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co - On remoteness,
reasonable foreseeability is just the starting point Ans✓✓✓In DC, K
was awarded $16K repair costs. cancellation of insurance was unlawful
and a breach of contract. Claimed $33K (value of vehicle), as repairer
had sold the vehicle when K had been unable to pay. Held: reasonably
foreseeable that refusal to pay the repair costs was likely to occasion
some financial strain, but not the total loss and financial consequences
that followed. on remoteness reasonable foreseeability is usually the
starting point, but not the end of the matter. Opening inquiry should seek
to establish a just balance between the parties.
,doctrine of privity Ans✓✓✓only an original party to a contract may
sue/be sued on it
benefit aspect (definition + case) Ans✓✓✓Tweedle v Atkinson. A third
party cannot sue to obtain benefits conferred to them in a contract
burden aspect (definition + case) Ans✓✓✓A third party cannot be made
subject to liabilities or restrictions under the contract. Dunlop Pneumatic
Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 has what effect on the doctrine of privity?
Ans✓✓✓applies to benefit only in contracts after 1 April 1983 &
provides rights and obligations to beneficiaries subject to s4
Parol Evidence Rule Ans✓✓✓When a contract is reduced to writing the
contract is proved by production of the written contract.
Other evidence which would have the effect of adding to or varying the
contract in any way is not admissible
Tak & Co Inc v AEL Corp Ltd application of parol evidence rule
Ans✓✓✓Tak imported livestock into Japan under terms set out in a pro
forma invoice.
AEL alleged the invoices not what was agreed to; there were
"understandings" which were not confirmed in the invoices.
, Held: The invoices were the entire relevant contract.
Terms of the contract are: Ans✓✓✓Every promise that was intended to
be legally enforceable as part of the contractual obligation.
The test of whether a term was intended to be binding: Ans✓✓✓The test
of Contractual intention is objective. Would a reasonable person have
determined from the parties words and actions that what was said was
intended to become binding?
Henderson v Arthur [1907] 1 KB 10 - parole evidence rule Ans✓✓✓An
oral agreement for the lease of a theatre was followed by a formal
contract.
Formal contract provided for payment of rent in advance; the defendant
argued oral agreement - rent payable by post-dated bill of exchange.
Defendant not permitted to give evidence of previous oral agreement. It
contradicted the express terms of the written lease and the later, written
expression of intention had to be preferred.
The rules of interpretation (6) Ans✓✓✓
The 'factual matrix' is intended to assist in.... Ans✓✓✓the 'objective'
interpretation of contracts by providing a 'context'. If there is no clear
meaning or if a term is ambiguous
