Contract Law Principles Quiz

True (A)

time

<p>Discharge by Performance, specifically Section 56(1) of the Contracts Act 1950, which states that if time is of the essence, delay allows the contract to be rescinded.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Discharge by Agreement = Minister of Health v Bellot Breach of Contract = Yong Mok Hin v United Malay States Sugar Industries Ltd Discharge by Performance = Re Krishnan Rengasamay, Ex P. Arab Malaysian Credit Bhd Rescission due to Delay = Gan Hwa Kian v Shencourt Sdn Bhd</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Gan Hwa Kian v Shencourt Sdn Bhd (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Section 56(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 outlines the legal principle that delay can be a valid ground for terminating a contract when time is of the essence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Whether defective goods violate implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The case established that goods with hidden defects, like defective shoes in this case, are considered unmerchantable, making the seller liable for injuries caused by such defects.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>proper materials, workmanship</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Grant v Australian Knitting Mills = Implied terms of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality David Jones v Willis = Hidden defects render goods unmerchantable Tarling v Baxter = Risk transfers at contract formation for specific goods Newtons Wembley Ltd v Williams = Buyer in possession can pass good title to a third party Teh Khem On &amp; Ors v Wu Development Sdn Bhd &amp; Ors = Contractor's duty to ensure proper materials and workmanship</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Newtons Wembley Ltd v Williams (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Common law principles</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>That they are safe for consumers (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Three-Stage Test</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>unforeseeable</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman = Duty of care does not arise in all financial misstatement cases Wagon Mound = Test for remoteness of damage Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co = No negligence found due to unforeseeable events Ginger Beer Case = Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Whether damages are recoverable based on foreseeability (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The event was unforeseeable.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Longstanding activities can still face nuisance claims if new harm arises. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Public benefit outweighing individual inconvenience</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>nuisance</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Sturges v Bridgman = Longstanding use does not prevent a nuisance claim if new harm arises. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Boey Siew Than &amp; Ors = Actions disturbing a large section of the community are public nuisances. Perbadanan Pengurusan Taman Bukit Jambul v Kerajaan Malaysia = Public interest may override minor nuisance claims.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The fire was not a foreseeable consequence of the oil spill. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>but for test</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>proximity</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They were not able to claim due to insufficient proximity. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The government was liable for the damage caused by juvenile offenders.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Causation in Fact = Determining if harm would have occurred but for the defendant's actions Primary Victims = Individuals directly involved in an incident Secondary Victims = Witnesses who may claim psychiatric harm Duty of Care = Obligation to prevent harm to others under specific circumstances</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>No notice was provided for termination. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>reasonable notice</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>3.5</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Bilung Han Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Mohd Nor Bin Abd Rahman = Termination was invalid, principal liable for damages Merbok Hilir Berhad v Sheikh Khaled Jassem Mohammad = Agent entitled to damages for unjust termination Sohrabji Dhunji Medora v Oriental Govt. Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd = Termination with insufficient notice deemed wrongful</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>By providing reasonable notice (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Reasonable Notice Doctrine</p> Signup and view all the answers

Goods must be fit for their intended use according to SOGA.

Goods must be of merchantable quality and safe to use under SOGA.

Sellers are liable for damages caused by defective goods.

Risk transfers at ownership transfer, regardless of delivery status.

A buyer in possession with consent can transfer ownership.

Contractors must use proper materials and workmanship in construction.

Sections outlining the requirements for goods and risk transfer.

Buyers can recover damages for injuries from defective goods.

Manufacturers must ensure product safety for consumers, even without a contract.

Case ruling that no negligence occurred as harm was unforeseeable.

Failing to act as a reasonable person would, causing harm.

1. Foreseeability 2. Proximity 3. Fairness, Justice, Reasonableness.

Case where duty of care was not owed in financial misstatements.

Liability is limited to reasonably foreseeable damages.

Was the damage something a reasonable person could predict?

The closeness of the relationship between parties in negligence claims.

A written notice required to terminate an agency contract.

A legal principle requiring reasonable notice before termination.

An agency contract that has a specified end date.

A valid reason required to terminate a fixed-term contract.

Legal decisions made by a court related to contract disputes.

Payment required to rectify loss from premature contract termination.

A factor influencing the reasonableness of termination notice.

The time period specified in an agency contract.

Requires proving that the breach caused the damage; includes 'but for' test.

The 'but for' test determines actual causation.

A claim fails if the harm would have occurred anyway, regardless of negligence.

Primary victims can claim, secondary victims need proximity proof.

Secondary victims must prove close proximity to establish claims for harm.

Government may owe duty of care for actions of third parties under their control.

A contractual requirement to inform a party before termination.

A contract can be ended if both parties consent or reasonable notice is given by one.

Failure of one party to fulfill a contractual obligation, allowing termination by the other party.

The right of an innocent party to seek compensation after lawful termination due to breach.

The contractual requirement that obligations must be fulfilled on schedule, as stated in law.

A contract that may be made void if time-critical performances are not completed on time.

A contract is fulfilled when all parties meet their obligations.

Legally canceling a contract due to significant delays in performance or terms.

A case ruling that nuisance claims can arise from long-standing activities if harm affects new parties.

A type of nuisance that impacts the comfort of a large group of people.

A legal principle allowing dismissal of nuisance claims for greater public benefit.

Long-term activities don’t automatically exempt from nuisance claims if new harm occurs.

Actions causing disturbance to a large community can be classified as public nuisances.