CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

• Apply these principles to the facts of the situation involving Bill and Conn.

Part (b) involves the doctrine of frustration (see Chapter 14).

• Define frustration and explain that it is used as a defence to an
  allegation of breach of contract. Bill could therefore claim frustration
  if he no longer required the computer, did not pay for it, and breach of
  contract was alleged.


• Explain the operation, using cases like Taylor v Caldwell, Morgan v
  Manser, Krell v Henry, then consider the effects of a finding of
  frustration: Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.


• Apply this to the contract between Bill and AB Computers.
  Part (c) involves an explanation of the remedies available for breach of
  contract.


• The main remedies are damages and repudiation depending on the type
  of term breached, but see Chapters 7, 14 and 15 for fuller details.


• Consider the choice of different remedies and whether they would be
  suitable in different circumstances.

Question 3

This question concerns the kinds of pre-contractual statements that may

amount to misrepresentation. The discussion will centre on the first part of

the chapter, and not really involve remedies.

• Define misrepresentation.


• Discuss the kinds of statements that will not amount to
  misrepresentation, such as mere commendation, opinion, etc.


• Discuss the general principle of remaining silent (Fletcher v Krell), and
  show that there are occasions where apparent silence can amount to a
  misrepresentation.


• Conclude, referring back to the question.

Question 4

This question focuses wholly on remedies. Although it may be useful to

define misrepresentation, or to explain it very briefly, this should amount

to no more than a couple of lines at the most, as you need to be selective,

and use your time to launch directly into the remedies issues.

• Explain the remedy of rescission – an equitable remedy which restores
  the parties to original position unless barred by: affirmation – Long v
  Lloyd; thirdparty rights – White v Garden; restitution impossible –
  Vigers v Pike; lapse of time – Leaf v International Galleries; or statute
  
  
  • s.2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967. Damages may be awarded in lieu
  
  
  
  

312 Contract law

CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 312