Question 1
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Gary points a loaded gun at Pete, and orders him to sign a written contract. Gary explains
that the document is for the sale of Pete’s car to him (Gary), at a price of R50 000 which is
far below the market value of the car. Pete, fearing for his life, signs the document. Which
cause of action is Pete most likely to pursue against Gary, to have the contract set aside?
1.
Duress.
2.
Undue Influence.
3.
Commercial bribery.
4.
Material Mistake.
5.
Reasonable Mistake.
Clear my choice
Question 2
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R5 000, and X and Y agree that
X’s offer will be open for acceptance until 1 June. This is a case of
1.
a pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
2.
an option contract formed bilaterally.
3.
an option contract formed unilaterally.
4.
an option and pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
5.
a pre-emption contract formed unilaterally.
,Clear my choice
Question 3
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Jack is engaged to Jill. Jack has a very strong personality and eventually persuades Jill to
sell and transfer her (Jill’s) house that is worth R900 000 to him (Jack) at a purchase price
of a mere R50 000. After registration of the property in Jack’s name, he breaks off the
engagement. Which option below has the LEAST amount of relevance, in relation to the
cause of action that Jill is likely to rely on in her pursuit to have the transfer of the house into
Jack’s name set aside?
1.
Proof that there was an erosion of Jill’s ability to exercise a free and independent judgment
at the time of contracting with Jack.
2.
Proof that Jack used his superior position to undermine the will of Jill.
3.
Proof that Jack and Jill were in a close relationship at the time of concluding their sale
agreement.
4.
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
5.
Proof that Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack.
Clear my choice
Question 4
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X finds himself stranded in a remote area when his motor vehicle breaks down. There is no
cell phone reception in the area. After five days have passed without seeing anyone, Y
comes along and offers to tow X to the nearest town for the exorbitant fee of R20 000. X is
upset that Y wants to charge such an excessive amount, but X eventually accepts Y’s offer.
X refuses to pay Y R20 000 after being towed to the town. A reasonable fee for towing would
have been R5 000, but Y claims the full amount of R20 000 from X. Regarding this factual
scenario, which statement is CORRECT?
1.
There was no consensus between X and Y to conclude a contract for R20 000.
,2.
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
3.
Based on Y’s conduct, this is a case of commercial bribery.
4.
Y fraudulently misrepresented his exorbitant fee charge of R20 000.
5.
This factual scenario deals with pacta de contrahendo.
Clear my choice
Question 5
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X, an organiser of art exhibitions, contracted with Y for an exhibition to be held on 24 to 27
July. These dates were the only dates mentioned during the negotiations. After having been
pressurised by X, Y hurriedly signed the standard form contract without reading it. The
contract contained a clause permitting X to change the dates of the exhibition unilaterally. X
was aware of this clause, but Y was not. Thereafter, X changed the dates. X had no reason to
believe that Y would have signed the contract if he had known of the term. This is a case of
1.
an error in persona.
2.
a non-material mistake.
3.
an error in negotio.
4.
a reasonable mistake.
5.
a material error and an error in negotio.
Clear my choice
Question 6
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
A contract for the benefit of a third party relates to
, 1.
simple joint liability.
2.
stipulatio alteri.
3.
liability in solidum.
4.
collective joint liability.
5.
a delict.
Clear my choice
Question 7
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Portia and Lucas are engaged and are living together. They want to purchase Jerome’s car.
Jerome has never met Portia. Jerome offers to sell his car to Lucas for R100 000. Lucas and
Portia accept Jerome’s offer. Which statement is CORRECT?
1.
The acceptance is valid, but Jerome can revoke his offer as he did not make an offer to
Portia.
2.
This is a very uncertain area of the law, and there is no case law in South Africa which deals
with this type of issue.
3.
The acceptance was unqualified, therefore the acceptance was valid.
4.
A valid contract has been concluded, because Lucas is one of the parties that accepted the
offer.
5.
Even though the acceptance by Lucas was a conscious response to the offer, the
acceptance was not valid.
Clear my choice
Question 8
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Gary points a loaded gun at Pete, and orders him to sign a written contract. Gary explains
that the document is for the sale of Pete’s car to him (Gary), at a price of R50 000 which is
far below the market value of the car. Pete, fearing for his life, signs the document. Which
cause of action is Pete most likely to pursue against Gary, to have the contract set aside?
1.
Duress.
2.
Undue Influence.
3.
Commercial bribery.
4.
Material Mistake.
5.
Reasonable Mistake.
Clear my choice
Question 2
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R5 000, and X and Y agree that
X’s offer will be open for acceptance until 1 June. This is a case of
1.
a pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
2.
an option contract formed bilaterally.
3.
an option contract formed unilaterally.
4.
an option and pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
5.
a pre-emption contract formed unilaterally.
,Clear my choice
Question 3
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Jack is engaged to Jill. Jack has a very strong personality and eventually persuades Jill to
sell and transfer her (Jill’s) house that is worth R900 000 to him (Jack) at a purchase price
of a mere R50 000. After registration of the property in Jack’s name, he breaks off the
engagement. Which option below has the LEAST amount of relevance, in relation to the
cause of action that Jill is likely to rely on in her pursuit to have the transfer of the house into
Jack’s name set aside?
1.
Proof that there was an erosion of Jill’s ability to exercise a free and independent judgment
at the time of contracting with Jack.
2.
Proof that Jack used his superior position to undermine the will of Jill.
3.
Proof that Jack and Jill were in a close relationship at the time of concluding their sale
agreement.
4.
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
5.
Proof that Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack.
Clear my choice
Question 4
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X finds himself stranded in a remote area when his motor vehicle breaks down. There is no
cell phone reception in the area. After five days have passed without seeing anyone, Y
comes along and offers to tow X to the nearest town for the exorbitant fee of R20 000. X is
upset that Y wants to charge such an excessive amount, but X eventually accepts Y’s offer.
X refuses to pay Y R20 000 after being towed to the town. A reasonable fee for towing would
have been R5 000, but Y claims the full amount of R20 000 from X. Regarding this factual
scenario, which statement is CORRECT?
1.
There was no consensus between X and Y to conclude a contract for R20 000.
,2.
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
3.
Based on Y’s conduct, this is a case of commercial bribery.
4.
Y fraudulently misrepresented his exorbitant fee charge of R20 000.
5.
This factual scenario deals with pacta de contrahendo.
Clear my choice
Question 5
Answer saved
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X, an organiser of art exhibitions, contracted with Y for an exhibition to be held on 24 to 27
July. These dates were the only dates mentioned during the negotiations. After having been
pressurised by X, Y hurriedly signed the standard form contract without reading it. The
contract contained a clause permitting X to change the dates of the exhibition unilaterally. X
was aware of this clause, but Y was not. Thereafter, X changed the dates. X had no reason to
believe that Y would have signed the contract if he had known of the term. This is a case of
1.
an error in persona.
2.
a non-material mistake.
3.
an error in negotio.
4.
a reasonable mistake.
5.
a material error and an error in negotio.
Clear my choice
Question 6
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
A contract for the benefit of a third party relates to
, 1.
simple joint liability.
2.
stipulatio alteri.
3.
liability in solidum.
4.
collective joint liability.
5.
a delict.
Clear my choice
Question 7
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Portia and Lucas are engaged and are living together. They want to purchase Jerome’s car.
Jerome has never met Portia. Jerome offers to sell his car to Lucas for R100 000. Lucas and
Portia accept Jerome’s offer. Which statement is CORRECT?
1.
The acceptance is valid, but Jerome can revoke his offer as he did not make an offer to
Portia.
2.
This is a very uncertain area of the law, and there is no case law in South Africa which deals
with this type of issue.
3.
The acceptance was unqualified, therefore the acceptance was valid.
4.
A valid contract has been concluded, because Lucas is one of the parties that accepted the
offer.
5.
Even though the acceptance by Lucas was a conscious response to the offer, the
acceptance was not valid.
Clear my choice
Question 8
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
