The English Law of Contract Trivia Quiz

Answer: an agreement by one partner in a marriage to not apply for maintenance in a divorce court

For a partner in a marriage to do this would be contrary to public policy (please see Bennett v Bennett in the Court of Appeal, 1952).
The other alternatives above are capable of being contracts. Please see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (CA 1893) for an example of an universal offer as in the "cough remedy" example. Also, see Nash v Inman (1908) for the purchase by a minor (note that only a reasonable price needs to be paid). Finally, see Chaplin v Hicks (CA. 1911) as regards the beauty contest.

Answer: a bus timetable

Please see Wilkie v London Transport Passenger Board (1947) 1 All E.R. 258 for Lord Greene's comments (obiter) on the subject of buses in this context. In any event the contract is not commenced until the passenger actually boards the bus. A timetable is usually thought of as an invitation to treat. Deeds are contracts that are binding without "consideration" needing to be proved.

The other two alternatives above are ordinary examples of everyday simple contracts.

Answer: True

Please see Adams v Lindsell (1818) and this applies even when the letter goes astray and is lost. Instantaneous modes of communication are of course different. E-mail is more complex and has not really been tested by the courts yet. E-mail acceptances probably take effect at the point when they enter the receiver's computer, we do not know for certain, but some lawyers will probably make a lot of money finding out!

Answer: Yes

The courts require the contract to have "consideration" and the adequacy of the consideration is of no consequence. A "peppercorn" rent is just as acceptable as a market rent. In Chappell & Co.Ltd v Nestle Co.Ltd (House of Lords 1960) old chocolate wrappers were acceptable as part of the consideration for a gramophone record.

Answer: The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations, 1994

The 1999 Act has now replaced the 1994 Act. It deals unsurprisingly with unfair terms in contracts between a seller/supplier and a consumer. It puts into English law pre-existing European law. The 1977 Act refers to the ability of business people to exclude liability for "negligence" in contracts with a consumer. Finally, the 1980 Act states how long a period of time actions for breach of contract last.

Answer: with terms no wider than is reasonably necessary

Please see Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler (CA. 1987). These express provisions in contracts are used where the employee is so skilled or known in the trade that the employer wishes to protect his/her interests. The employee can work in other trades, or where the agreement allows him/her to move to and away from the previous business.

Answer: an order that the contract must be done as agreed

The court can order the completion of the contract according to the agreement. However, it has powers to award damages instead and some contracts can not be made the subject of "specific performance" orders. For instances contracts of employment can never be "contracts of slavery" and specific performance will not be relevant to such contracts.

Answer: One to employ an accountant to help avoid tax

Well, we all had that one right didn't we? The courts will allow you to avoid the spirit of the law, provided that you keep within the letter of the law. For the illegality of contracts "to break the law" please see Everet v Williams (1725) where not surprisingly you can not have a contract between highwaymen to rob a coach! For the illegality of contracts relating to immorality please see Pearce v Brooks (1866).

Answer: not my deed (or document)

You are bound by documents that you sign, whether you have read them or not. However, if you can show that the document was fundamentally or radically different from what you believed it to be, then you have the possibility of getting a court to set the document aside. Please see Saunders v Anglia Building Society (HL in 1971) for a case that shows how difficult it can be to set aside a document in such a way.

Answer: Yes

In Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service BV (CA 2002) the defendants were the sponsors of a Spice Girls' tour. The Spice Girls appeared in advanced promotional material for the tour and prior to the contract being finalized, while at the same time knowing that one of their number (Geri Halliwell) was about to leave the group so as not to be available for the tour.

This conduct was seen as an actionable misrepresentation. I hope that if you enjoyed this quiz and the others proceeding it in "English Law"(in the "World Section-Law" part of Funtrivia), then more quizzes on other parts of the English law will follow.