ACCT 252 LAW OF BUSINESS CONTRACTS (LATEST
UPDATE) REAL QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS
|100% CORRECT | ALREADY GRADED A
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - 7 factors Ans✓✓✓1) pre-existing legal
relationship between the parties
2) Unequivocal unambiguous in the promises mind
3) Reliance from the promisee
4) Promise suffers Detriment
5) Unconscionable or unfair if promisor takes back
6) Subsequent rights and obligations only
7) Rights suspended and not terminated
Pre-existing legal relationship between the parties Ans✓✓✓Burbery
Mortgage Finance & Savings Ltd v Hindsbank Holdings Ltd
Even thought the parties did not have a pre existing contract, a future
relationship would arise, as they had an interest in the same subject
matter.
Unequivocal unambiguous in the promises mind Ans✓✓✓Dale v
Trustbank Waikato Ltd
Life Insurance taken out on a regular basis, when time to claim
insurance company said the policy should never have been issues in the
first place. According to Ms Dale she had no reason to believe that was
the case.
,Reliance from the promisee Ans✓✓✓McDonald v Attorney-General
Wheat board led growers to believe they would buy all stock. Grower(s)
then did not sell stock. Wheat board reneged on the promise to buy, and
there for grower had to sell stock at a lost.
Estoppel now seen as a way to make a claim, and not only a defense.
Promise suffers Detriment Ans✓✓✓Young v New Bay Holdings Ltd
Solicitor said they will pass information forward to client, asking the
plaintiff not to go forward with anything until a response, took time to
talk to client and then back to plaintiff, then used that as time delay as
reason of defense of claim.
Unconscionable or unfair if promisor takes back Ans✓✓✓Waltons
Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher
Building contract with demolition and rebuild, said contract would be
signed, but keep the project moving to start work immediately.
Subsequent rights and obligations only Ans✓✓✓Homeguard Products
(NZ) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd
, Banking cheque with note saying accepting will make account paid in
full. Was accepted and banked... Can not go back on was rights was
forfeited.
Rights suspended and not terminated. Ans✓✓✓Tool Metal Mfg Co Ltd
v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
Have to give notice to reinforce the suspended terms. Pay royalties after
the economy picked up. Could do claim for them with out notice (but
this case the first court case was enough notice for revocation in few
years time.
Intention to be Bound Ans✓✓✓Traditional (social v business) then
modern approach.
Traditional Approach - Social Aggreement Ans✓✓✓Balfour v Balfour.
They drifted apart, they are not contracts because the parties did not
intend that they should be attended by legal consequences
Welch v Jess
Fisher competition, $6000 prize
Simpkins v Pays
A Grandmother, granddaughter and a lodger entered into a weekly
competition run by the Sunday Empire News
UPDATE) REAL QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS
|100% CORRECT | ALREADY GRADED A
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - 7 factors Ans✓✓✓1) pre-existing legal
relationship between the parties
2) Unequivocal unambiguous in the promises mind
3) Reliance from the promisee
4) Promise suffers Detriment
5) Unconscionable or unfair if promisor takes back
6) Subsequent rights and obligations only
7) Rights suspended and not terminated
Pre-existing legal relationship between the parties Ans✓✓✓Burbery
Mortgage Finance & Savings Ltd v Hindsbank Holdings Ltd
Even thought the parties did not have a pre existing contract, a future
relationship would arise, as they had an interest in the same subject
matter.
Unequivocal unambiguous in the promises mind Ans✓✓✓Dale v
Trustbank Waikato Ltd
Life Insurance taken out on a regular basis, when time to claim
insurance company said the policy should never have been issues in the
first place. According to Ms Dale she had no reason to believe that was
the case.
,Reliance from the promisee Ans✓✓✓McDonald v Attorney-General
Wheat board led growers to believe they would buy all stock. Grower(s)
then did not sell stock. Wheat board reneged on the promise to buy, and
there for grower had to sell stock at a lost.
Estoppel now seen as a way to make a claim, and not only a defense.
Promise suffers Detriment Ans✓✓✓Young v New Bay Holdings Ltd
Solicitor said they will pass information forward to client, asking the
plaintiff not to go forward with anything until a response, took time to
talk to client and then back to plaintiff, then used that as time delay as
reason of defense of claim.
Unconscionable or unfair if promisor takes back Ans✓✓✓Waltons
Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher
Building contract with demolition and rebuild, said contract would be
signed, but keep the project moving to start work immediately.
Subsequent rights and obligations only Ans✓✓✓Homeguard Products
(NZ) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd
, Banking cheque with note saying accepting will make account paid in
full. Was accepted and banked... Can not go back on was rights was
forfeited.
Rights suspended and not terminated. Ans✓✓✓Tool Metal Mfg Co Ltd
v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
Have to give notice to reinforce the suspended terms. Pay royalties after
the economy picked up. Could do claim for them with out notice (but
this case the first court case was enough notice for revocation in few
years time.
Intention to be Bound Ans✓✓✓Traditional (social v business) then
modern approach.
Traditional Approach - Social Aggreement Ans✓✓✓Balfour v Balfour.
They drifted apart, they are not contracts because the parties did not
intend that they should be attended by legal consequences
Welch v Jess
Fisher competition, $6000 prize
Simpkins v Pays
A Grandmother, granddaughter and a lodger entered into a weekly
competition run by the Sunday Empire News
