CIPS L5M3 Managing Contractual Risk Exam Practice Test

Explanation

"the party indicates they no longer intend to fulfil their contractual obligations, usually in response to a breach". This is the definition of 'repudiate' given on p. 128 Before the exam check you understand the difference between repudiate, rescind and revoke. These are all ways contracts can end but are slightly different.

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

The answer is collaborate because they have set up a meeting to discuss options.

Explanation

Offers include bids on an auction and a price proposal that is valid for 14 days. The other three options are Invitations to Treat. See p.3 for the full list of what constitutes an Invitation to Treat. The tricky thing here is that an auction is an invitation to treat but a bid on an auction is an offer. An auction is an ITT because you're encouraging people to make an offer to you. A bid on the auction is the offer (you offer to buy something at a price you propose).

Explanation

Silence is not acceptance. Acceptance can be in writing, verbal or implied by conduct. The three other options are ways in which a contract could be accepted by conduct. See p.8 of the study guide

Explanation

This is #4. This exact definition is given on p.116 under the section 'Giving Notice'

Explanation

They can claim damages but not terminate the contract. If Blue company has broken a Condition, they would be able to terminate the contract, but this isn't the case for a breach of a Warranty. See p.43 for more details

Explanation

A limitation of liability caps a company's exposure to risk. In SOME cases this may mean that the responsibility passes to the other party- but not always. For this reason option 2 is correct and 4 isn't. Option 1 is the definition of liquidated damages and 3 is just a made-up answer. See p.20 for more information on Liability

Explanation

A variation clause and signed agreement by both parties is required to make the change. See p.16-17 for more information on contract variations. Note a 'notification of change' isn't valid unless it's accepted by the other party- so it's a good idea for both parties to sign to say they agree to the change.

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

Table Description automatically generated

This is a condition. Again the food being organic would be fundamental to the contract as the health of the llamas depend on it.

This is arbitration as it involves a panel.

This is an innominate term as it won't be mentioned in the contract. It won't be until a breach occurs when it is decided whether the issue of subcontracting is a condition or a warranty, and which one it will be, will likely depend on the situation. For example if they subcontract out to a non-organic llama food provider, that would probably be a Condition. If they get help fulfilling an order and the subcontractor is also organic, that's probably a warranty.

Explanation

The correct answer is 1 'the process provides certainty that an outcome will be reached'. Options 2 and 3 are true statements but they are not advantages of litigation, they are disadvantages. Option 4 is false - litigation is a long and costly process. See p. 85 for more information on litigation

Explanation

The correct answers are: 1) the painter using magnolia instead of white, and 5) the supplier who was late on his delivery. These are considered minor breaches because the contract was still fulfilled and it didn't affect the contract in any significant way. In this type of question you have to use logic to deduce the right answer; 2) A consultant giving bad advice would be a major breach - it would be a huge issue, particularly if that advice led to an accident or death. Think about an Architect advising on a type of pillar, and it turns out that pillar can't support the weight of the building. That would be bad. 3) Lions and Tigers are not the same thing - so that would be a pretty fundamental mistake in a contract. 4) Breaching a non-disclosure agreement is usually considered a major breach of a contract (this is mentioned in chapter 2.1). See p. 48 for more information on minor breaches.

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

Table Description automatically generated

Litigation is the only resolution method which goes 'through the courts'. Therefore this is the correct answer

Explanation

"no- the contract can be affirmed by the injured party" is the correct answer. When there is a breach in a condition, one of two things can happen; the contract is terminated, or the contract is affirmed. The injured party has the choice of whether or not they want to continue working with the other party and this is called 'affirmirmation of the contract'. The contract doesn't HAVE to be terminated in the case of a major breach so options 1 and 2 are incorrect. Option 4 is also incorrect- the contract can continue even if the offending party says they'll commit further breaches - it's completely up to the injured party whether they want to continue working with them or not. See p. 46 for further details

Explanation

Frustrated is when "a situation has occurred which means that the contract can no longer be per-formed". The situation is one which is outside of the control of either party and its no one's fault that this has happened. A common example of this is when contracts were unable to be performed due to Covid-19 and the national lockdown. The government mandated everyone 'stay at home' and therefore some business contracts were unable to be fulfilled, and were therefore 'frustrated' (for example the delivery of popcorn to cinemas- the cinemas were told by the government to close so the popcorn couldn't be delivered. This wasn't anyone's fault). See p. 47 for more information on Contract Frustration

Explanation

Verity can sue for damages. The order was placed over the phone meaning that there was a verbal contract in place. Contracts do not need to be written to be enforceable so option 2 is incorrect. There is no termination clause mentioned in the question so you can assume that there isn't one. This means that the retailer is committing a breach of the verbal contract by cancelling the order. Verity could therefore apply for damages. (Whether or not they'd be awarded is a different matter!). This question tests your understanding of when contracts can be terminated and remedies for breaches. See p. 134.

Explanation

This would be service credits. If this is present and the contract stated 100% online access- Lisa could claim 3% of her money back. See p.112 for information on service credits

Explanation

Yes- this is known as a limitation of liability clause. See p. 112 for more details

Explanation

1+3 are correct. Specific Performance tend to go through the courts so this is a lengthy and costly process. Because it's mandated by the courts it means that if the offending party doesn't comply, this is a criminal offence and they can be arrested. Option 2 is incorrect as it is the opposite of option 1. Option 4 is incorrect because there is no need for the innocent party to mitigate any losses. See p. 132 for more information on Specific Performance