1) Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

1) Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

1) Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

1) Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

1) Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

Which of the following cases is authority for the proposition that the courts will not enforce an agreement which is too uncertain?

1.   ?    Scammell v Ouston
2.   ?    Central London Property v High Trees House
   s
3.   ?    Williams v Roffey
4.   ?    Foley v Classique Coache

An agreement states that “The duration of this agreement is 2 years. 2 months before this period is due to expire, the parties will negotiate a renewal of this agreement in good faith.” Is this enforceable?

1.   ?    Yes, because a recent case has held that such clauses are enforceable
2.   ?    No, because it is an agreement to agree and is not sufficiently certain for the courts to enforce
3.   ?    Yes, because it is similar to dispute resolution clauses
4.   ?    No, because there is no consideration

Assume that the parties in question 2 have come to end of their 2 year contract, but instead of negotiating a new agreement they have simply carried on dealing with each other as before. One party decides that it does not want to fulfil any of its obligations. It argues that, in view of the failure to agree a new contract, there can be no binding agreement between the parties at all because the terms are simply too uncertain to enforce. Is this argument likely to succeed?

1.   ?    Yes, because it is up to businesses to look out for themselves in situations like this – if they don’t protect themselves by agreement, the courts won’t help them
2.   ?    No, because the court can probably use the terms which the parties agreed to before to give sufficient certainty (and the parties’ conduct suggests that they have accepted at least some of those terms e.g. price etc)
3.   ?    No, but the courts are unlikely to uphold the agreement anyway because there is no consideration

What case would you cite to support your answer to question 3?

1.   ?    Scammell v Ouston
2.   ?    iSoft Group v Misys Holdings
3.   ?    White v Bluett
4.   ?    Hillas v Arcos

Which of the following statements is not true?

1.   ?    Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine
2.   ?    Promissory estoppel is rarely applied in practice
3.   ?    Promissory estoppel was most recently applied in Williams v Roffey
4.   ?    Promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence to a claim for payment

True or false: “The ruling in Williams v Roffey does not apply in cases involving part payment of debts.”

1.   ?    False
2.   ?    True

In White v Bluett, a son promised not to bore his father. Which of the rules governing consideration was not satisfied?

1.   ?    Consideration must move from the promisee
2.   ?    Consideration must not be in the past
3.   ?    Consideration must be sufficient

In Tweddle v Atkinson, two fathers, Tweddle and Guy, agreed to pay a sum of money to Tweddle’s son. Guy died before he had paid his share of the money. Tweddle’s son sued the executor of Guy’s estate. Which of the rules governing consideration was not satisfied?

1.   ?    Consideration must move from the promisee
2.   ?    Consideration must not be in the past
3.   ?    Consideration must be sufficient

If Tweddle v Atkinson occurred today, would the result be any different?

1.   ?    No – it is still good law
2.   ?    Yes, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 might allow Tweddle’s son to enforce the agreement
3.   ?    No, because the 1999 Act requires contracts to be made in the form of a deed