Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) Contract Law and Law of Tort Syllabus

Contract Law and Law of Tort syllabus — full chapter and topic list

Expand any chapter to see its topics and sub-topics. This is the whole examinable outline for Contract Law and Law of Tort in Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   Formation of Contract

   4 topics

   • Offer and acceptance
     • Invitation to treat distinction
     • Postal rule and instantaneous communication
     • Battle of the forms
   • Consideration and promissory estoppel
     • Sufficiency and adequacy
     • Past consideration
     • Practical benefit (Williams v Roffey)
   • Intention to create legal relations
   • Certainty and completeness of terms
2. 2

   Contents and Vitiating Factors

   5 topics

   • Terms: conditions, warranties, innominate terms
   • Implied terms and exclusion clauses
     • Incorporation and construction
     • UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015 controls
   • Misrepresentation
     • Types and remedies
     • Misrepresentation Act 1967
   • Mistake, duress and undue influence
   • Illegality and public policy
3. 3

   Discharge and Remedies

   5 topics

   • Discharge by performance, agreement and frustration
   • Breach and repudiation
   • Damages
     • Expectation and reliance measure
     • Remoteness (Hadley v Baxendale)
     • Mitigation and contributory fault
   • Equitable remedies and specific performance
   • Privity and third party rights
4. 4

   Negligence

   4 topics

   • Duty of care
     • Caparo three-stage test
     • Pure economic loss
     • Psychiatric harm
   • Breach and the standard of care
   • Causation and remoteness
     • Factual causation (but-for, material contribution)
     • Legal causation and novus actus
   • Defences
     • Contributory negligence
     • Volenti and illegality
5. 5

   Other Torts and Liability

   5 topics

   • Occupiers' liability
     • 1957 Act (visitors)
     • 1984 Act (trespassers)
   • Employers' and vicarious liability
   • Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
   • Defamation and privacy overview
   • Product liability

Contract Law and Law of Tort flashcards for Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)

21 of 54 cards from the Contract Law and Law of Tort deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. What are the four essential elements required to form a legally binding contract?

   (1) Offer, (2) Acceptance, (3) Consideration, and (4) Intention to create legal relations. (Capacity and certainty/completeness of terms are also required for enforceability.)

2. Distinguish an offer from an invitation to treat, and give the leading authority.

   An offer is a definite statement of terms made with intention to be bound on acceptance. An invitation to treat merely invites others to make offers (e.g. goods on display, advertisements, auctions). Authority: Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots (1953) - goods on a shelf are an invitation to treat; the customer makes the offer at the till.

3. State the rule on acceptance by post (the postal rule) and its leading case.

   Acceptance is complete and effective when the letter is properly posted, not when received - Adams v Lindsell (1818). It applies only where post is a reasonable means of acceptance and not displaced by the offer's terms.

4. What is a counter-offer and what effect does it have on the original offer?

   A counter-offer is a response that introduces new terms; it rejects and destroys the original offer, which can no longer be accepted - Hyde v Wrench (1840). A mere request for information does not destroy the offer (Stevenson v McLean).

5. What is the legal definition of consideration?

   "A valuable consideration... may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other" - Currie v Misa (1875). It is the price for which the promise is bought.

6. State the rule that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.

   Consideration must have some recognisable economic value (sufficient) but the courts will not assess whether it is a fair or equivalent price (need not be adequate) - Chappell v Nestle (1960), where chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration.

7. Explain the rule in Pinnel's Case on part payment of a debt.

   Payment of a lesser sum on the due date cannot satisfy a debt for a greater sum - part payment is no consideration for a promise to forgo the balance (Pinnel's Case 1602; affirmed Foakes v Beer 1884). Exceptions: payment early, in a different form, or at a different place at the creditor's request.

8. State the requirements for promissory estoppel.

   (1) A clear and unequivocal promise (by words or conduct) not to enforce strict legal rights; (2) reliance by the promisee; (3) it would be inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise. Origin: Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947). It is a shield, not a sword (Combe v Combe).

9. How is intention to create legal relations presumed in (a) social/domestic agreements and (b) commercial agreements?

   (a) Domestic/social agreements: presumed NOT intended to be legally binding - Balfour v Balfour (1919). (b) Commercial agreements: presumed intended to be legally binding - Esso v Commissioners (1976). Both presumptions are rebuttable by evidence.

10. What is the effect of an 'honour clause' such as 'binding in honour only'?

    It rebuts the presumption of intention to create legal relations in a commercial context, making the agreement legally unenforceable - Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros (1925).

11. What happens to a contract that lacks certainty or completeness of terms?

    It is void for uncertainty - the court cannot enforce a vague or incomplete agreement (e.g. 'on hire-purchase terms' in Scammell v Ouston 1941). However, courts may cure uncertainty via custom, prior dealings, statutory implied terms, or a workable machinery clause.

12. Distinguish a condition, a warranty and an innominate term.

    Condition: a term going to the root of the contract; breach allows termination AND damages. Warranty: a minor term; breach allows damages only, not termination. Innominate term: classified by the effect of the breach (Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki 1962) - termination only available if the breach deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit.

13. State the 'Hong Kong Fir' test for whether breach of an innominate term permits termination.

    Termination is permitted only if the breach deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit it was intended to obtain under the contract - Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki (1962).

14. Which terms are implied into a sale of goods to a consumer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

    Goods must be: (1) of satisfactory quality (s.9), (2) fit for a particular purpose made known (s.10), and (3) as described (s.11). These statutory rights cannot be excluded against a consumer.

15. How does the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) treat clauses excluding liability for (a) death/personal injury from negligence and (b) other loss from negligence?

    (a) Liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence CANNOT be excluded or restricted at all (s.2(1)). (b) Liability for other loss/damage from negligence can be excluded only insofar as the term satisfies the reasonableness test (s.2(2)).

16. State the requirements for an exclusion clause to be effective.

    (1) Incorporation - into the contract by signature, notice, or course of dealing (notice must be given before/at contract formation: Olley v Marlborough Court); (2) Construction - the words must cover the loss on their true interpretation (contra proferentem rule); (3) it must pass statutory controls (UCTA 1977 / CRA 2015).

17. Define an actionable misrepresentation.

    An unambiguous false statement of existing fact (or law) made by one party to the other which induces that other to enter the contract. It must not be mere opinion, sales puff, or future intention (unless the maker had no such intention).

18. Compare fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation and their remedies.

    Fraudulent (Derry v Peek - made knowingly, without belief in truth, or recklessly): rescission + damages in deceit. Negligent (Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(1) - maker cannot prove reasonable belief): rescission + damages (fiction of fraud). Innocent (reasonable grounds to believe true): rescission, or damages in lieu under s.2(2).

19. What is the measure of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit)?

    All direct losses flowing from the transaction, whether or not foreseeable - the claimant is restored to the position as if the misrepresentation had not been made (Doyle v Olby 1969). Remoteness does not limit deceit damages.

20. Distinguish common mistake, mutual mistake and unilateral mistake.

    Common mistake: both parties share the same mistaken belief (e.g. subject matter does not exist - res extincta, Couturier v Hastie). Mutual (cross-purposes) mistake: parties are at cross-purposes (Raffles v Wichelhaus). Unilateral mistake: only one party is mistaken and the other knows it (commonly as to identity or terms - Cundy v Lindsay).

21. What must a claimant establish for duress to the person or economic duress?

    (1) Illegitimate pressure (threat of unlawful act, e.g. violence or unlawful economic harm); (2) the pressure was a significant cause inducing the contract; (3) the victim had no practical/reasonable alternative but to submit. Effect: contract is voidable - Universe Tankships v ITWF (The Universe Sentinel).

See more Contract Law and Law of Tort flashcards →

Planning Contract Law and Law of Tort for Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)

Contract Law and Law of Tort (Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)) FAQ