CONTRACT LAW
EXAM 2022
The exam paper is a detailed legal analysis within the context of UK Contract Law, focusing on key
concepts such as misrepresentation, breach of contract, and various legal remedies. It examines the
nuances of different types of misrepresentation, including fraudulent, negligent, and innocent
misrepresentation, and how they impact contractual relationships. The paper also delves into the
complexities of anticipatory breach of contract and discusses the legal implications and remedies
available in such scenarios. Additionally, it explores the formation of unilateral contracts in the tender
process and the legal consequences of failing to adhere to such agreements. Throughout, the paper
integrates and applies relevant legal precedents and statutes, such as the Misrepresentation Act
(Northern Ireland) 1967, to support its analysis and provides a thorough understanding of these key
legal concepts and their application in contract law disputes.
KEY TERMS
• Misrepresentation
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Negligent Misrepresentation at Common Law
• Negligent Misrepresentation under Statute
• Innocent Misrepresentation
• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
• Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
• Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd
• Muspreime v Adhill
• Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967
• Breach of Contract
• Anticipatory Breach
• Hochster v De la Tour
• Frost v Knight
• Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland
• Farley v Skinner
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound)
• Royscot v Rogerson
• Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
• Unilateral Contract
• Spencer v Harding
• Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council
• Rescission
• Damages
• Expectation Damages
• Tender Process
• Practical Benefit Doctrine
1
, PROBLEM SCENARIO
Albrecht Construction Ltd successfully bid for a contract for the construction of a new multi-
purpose sports arena, which will be located in the Malone Playing Fields. In putting together
its bid, Albrecht Construction Ltd invited tenders from sub-contractors for the installation of
dressing rooms. The average figure quoted by sub-contractors bidding for the dressing
rooms’ job was to be factored into calculating the overall bid to be made by Albrecht
Construction Ltd for the arena. The invitation to tender stated that all bids received by
Albrecht Construction Ltd at its main office by 5pm on 31st March 2021 would be considered
for the award of the dressing rooms’ sub-contract. It also stated that because sub-contract
bids were so important to the calculation of the overall contract bid, sub-contractors could
not be allowed to withdraw their bids after 31st March.
Two sub-contractors placed bids with Albrecht Construction Ltd before 31st March. Michael
hand delivered a bid by 4pm on 31st March but it was mislaid by a clerk in Albrecht
Construction Ltd’s office and consequently not considered. Philip posted a bid of
approximately half the price Michael had bid due to an arithmetical error in drawing up the
bid. Philip’s bid arrived in good time and was accepted. Had Michael’s bid been accepted,
Albrecht Builders Ltd’s bid for the overall contract would probably have failed because it
would have been slightly less competitive than another contractor’s. Philip has just
discovered his mistake and has told Albrecht Construction Ltd that he will have to withdraw
his bid because there is no way he could do the job at that price. Michael has just discovered
that his bid was not even considered and is making noises to the effect that he will sue if
Albrecht Construction Ltd does not award him the sub-contract. If Albrecht Construction Ltd
does this, and remains within the price it is committed to for the overall contract, then its
profit margin will be reduced to almost nothing. Advise Albrecht Construction Ltd what it
should do in its present predicament.
ANSWER: Albrecht Construction Ltd
PHILIP
Philip’s bid won the tender and he subsequently entered into a contract with Albrecht
Construction to build dressing rooms in the arena. However, due to an alleged mathematical
error, Philip must withdraw his bid. There are three legal concepts Albrecht Construction
should consider regarding Philip: misrepresentation, breach, and rescission.
MISREPRESENTATION
Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact to persuade the
other to enter into a contract. There are four types of misrepresentation: (1) fraudulent
misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation at common law, (3) negligent
misrepresentation under statute, and (4) innocent misrepresentation.
2
EXAM 2022
The exam paper is a detailed legal analysis within the context of UK Contract Law, focusing on key
concepts such as misrepresentation, breach of contract, and various legal remedies. It examines the
nuances of different types of misrepresentation, including fraudulent, negligent, and innocent
misrepresentation, and how they impact contractual relationships. The paper also delves into the
complexities of anticipatory breach of contract and discusses the legal implications and remedies
available in such scenarios. Additionally, it explores the formation of unilateral contracts in the tender
process and the legal consequences of failing to adhere to such agreements. Throughout, the paper
integrates and applies relevant legal precedents and statutes, such as the Misrepresentation Act
(Northern Ireland) 1967, to support its analysis and provides a thorough understanding of these key
legal concepts and their application in contract law disputes.
KEY TERMS
• Misrepresentation
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Negligent Misrepresentation at Common Law
• Negligent Misrepresentation under Statute
• Innocent Misrepresentation
• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
• Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
• Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd
• Muspreime v Adhill
• Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967
• Breach of Contract
• Anticipatory Breach
• Hochster v De la Tour
• Frost v Knight
• Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland
• Farley v Skinner
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound)
• Royscot v Rogerson
• Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
• Unilateral Contract
• Spencer v Harding
• Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council
• Rescission
• Damages
• Expectation Damages
• Tender Process
• Practical Benefit Doctrine
1
, PROBLEM SCENARIO
Albrecht Construction Ltd successfully bid for a contract for the construction of a new multi-
purpose sports arena, which will be located in the Malone Playing Fields. In putting together
its bid, Albrecht Construction Ltd invited tenders from sub-contractors for the installation of
dressing rooms. The average figure quoted by sub-contractors bidding for the dressing
rooms’ job was to be factored into calculating the overall bid to be made by Albrecht
Construction Ltd for the arena. The invitation to tender stated that all bids received by
Albrecht Construction Ltd at its main office by 5pm on 31st March 2021 would be considered
for the award of the dressing rooms’ sub-contract. It also stated that because sub-contract
bids were so important to the calculation of the overall contract bid, sub-contractors could
not be allowed to withdraw their bids after 31st March.
Two sub-contractors placed bids with Albrecht Construction Ltd before 31st March. Michael
hand delivered a bid by 4pm on 31st March but it was mislaid by a clerk in Albrecht
Construction Ltd’s office and consequently not considered. Philip posted a bid of
approximately half the price Michael had bid due to an arithmetical error in drawing up the
bid. Philip’s bid arrived in good time and was accepted. Had Michael’s bid been accepted,
Albrecht Builders Ltd’s bid for the overall contract would probably have failed because it
would have been slightly less competitive than another contractor’s. Philip has just
discovered his mistake and has told Albrecht Construction Ltd that he will have to withdraw
his bid because there is no way he could do the job at that price. Michael has just discovered
that his bid was not even considered and is making noises to the effect that he will sue if
Albrecht Construction Ltd does not award him the sub-contract. If Albrecht Construction Ltd
does this, and remains within the price it is committed to for the overall contract, then its
profit margin will be reduced to almost nothing. Advise Albrecht Construction Ltd what it
should do in its present predicament.
ANSWER: Albrecht Construction Ltd
PHILIP
Philip’s bid won the tender and he subsequently entered into a contract with Albrecht
Construction to build dressing rooms in the arena. However, due to an alleged mathematical
error, Philip must withdraw his bid. There are three legal concepts Albrecht Construction
should consider regarding Philip: misrepresentation, breach, and rescission.
MISREPRESENTATION
Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact to persuade the
other to enter into a contract. There are four types of misrepresentation: (1) fraudulent
misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation at common law, (3) negligent
misrepresentation under statute, and (4) innocent misrepresentation.
2
