6. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

A specialty (deed) needs to be supported by at least a nominal consideration
A simple contract is usually unenforceable unless it is supported by sufficient consideration
A simple contract is usually unenforceable unless it is supported by adequate consideration
A contract is unenforceable unless it is supported by sufficient consideration

7. In what case was it held that past consideration might be good consideration where the act in question was performed at the request of the other party, with the implication that it would be paid for, and that this was true in the instant case?

Hamlyn & Co v Wood & Co.
Wettern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hong Kong Fir)
Star Shipping AS v China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp (The Star Texas)

None of the above, the case concerned a mistake as to the existence of the goods to be sold (res extincta)
A mistaken belief about the identity of the other party may not render the contract void where the apparent identity was not essential to the intention to contract
A mistake by one party as to the identity of the other party will always render the contract void for mistake, even where identity was not essential to the intention to contract
A mistake as to the existence of a particular quality or attribute of the other contracting party at the time the contract was made will render the contract void for mistake

A contract becomes frustrated if the subject matter of the contract is destroyed, through no fault of either party, after the contract is made
A contract is frustrated if, after the contract is made, circumstances so change that it becomes grossly uncommercial for either party, so that such a party would not have contemplated entering into the contract
A contract is frustrated if changes in circumstances make it fundamentally and essentially different from what was contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made
A contract is frustrated if the agreed mode of performance becomes illegal after the contract is made but before the time performance was due to take place

The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is not applicable to agreements to accept reduced payment of a debt
The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is confined to the construction industry because it is founded on customary expectations in that industry
The proposition of Williams v. Roffey applies to cases of debt
The proposition of Williams v. Roffey only applies where there is a deed of variation

It is the fairest term to imply in all the circumstances
It would be consistent with best practice in the industry concerned
It is the least term that can be implied if the contract is to be given business efficacy
It is the most reasonable term that can be implied to fill a gap in the contract, based on normal commercial practice

The normal remedies for breach of contract are damages, injunction and specific performance and it is for the claimant to elect which one he gets if successful
None of the above is really a fair statement.
Damages are automatically awarded to a successful claimant, even if he has not suffered a measurable loss, though damages might be only nominal
Damages are the only remedy to which a successful claimant is automatically entitled, but are only awarded if he has suffered a measurable loss

Ingram v Little (mistake as to identity); Bell v Lever Brothers (mistake as to quality); Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd (unilateral mistake)
Raffles v Wichelhaus (mistake as to identity); Leaf v International Galleries (mistake as to quality); Ingram v Little (res extincta)
Raffles v Wichelhaus (mutual mistake); Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd (res extincta); Bell v Lever Brothers (mistake as to quality)
Bell v Lever Brothers (mistake as to identity); Hartog v Colin & Shields (common mistake); Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd (res extincta)

An incorrect statement of fact, made fraudulently or negligently, which reasonably induced the innocent party to enter into the contract to his detriment
An incorrect statement of fact or opinion, made fraudulently or negligently, which reasonably induced the innocent party to enter into the contract to his detriment
An incorrect statement of present fact, which reasonably induced the innocent party to enter into the contract resulting in a loss to him
An incorrect statement of fact or opinion which induced the innocent party to enter into the contract to his detriment

The principle that promissory estoppel is ‘a shield and not a sword’ is no longer applicable
The rule in Foakes v Beer is abolished
The principle of promissory estoppel can apply to debts as well as to other obligations
The rule in Pinnel’s Case is abolished