Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter.
Get Started!Correct. Feedback: An employee restraint clause that prevents legitimate competition will not be upheld as this may prevent the ex-employee from engaging in employment. Clauses to protect areas such as trade secrets and client contracts may be protected Forster v Suggett (1918). The position of the employee may be relevant, as if t he employee occupied a senior position and was a key business asset; it is more likely that the restraint may be reasonable (Herbert Morris ltd v Saxelby [1916]).
Incorrect. Feedback: An employee restraint clause that prevents legitimate competition will not be upheld as this may prevent the ex-employee from engaging in employment. Clauses to protect areas such as trade secrets and client contracts may be protected Forster v Suggett (1918). The position of the employee may be relevant, as if t he employee occupied a senior position and was a key business asset; it is more likely that the restraint may be reasonable (Herbert Morris ltd v Saxelby [1916]).
Correct. Feedback: The case of Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt (1894) is authority for the fact that all covenants in restraint of trade are prima facie contrary to public policy and void. However if it can be demonstrated that a company has a legitimate interest to protect and the scope of the restraint does not extend further than is reasonable to protect that interest, and there is no general public interest at stake in permitting the restriction, the courts will uphold the restriction.
Incorrect. Feedback: The case of Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt (1894) is authority for the fact that all covenants in restraint of trade are prima facie contrary to public policy and void. However if it can be demonstrated that a company has a legitimate interest to protect and the scope of the restraint does not extend further than is reasonable to protect that interest, and there is no general public interest at stake in permitting the restriction, the courts will uphold the restriction.
Correct. Feedback: Contracts for necessaries and beneficial contracts of service are the only contracts that can be enforced against minors. The law pursues two conflicting policies in the case of minors. On the one hand it tries to protect minors from their own inexperience; on the other, it tries to ensure that persons dealing with minors are not dealt with in a harsh manner. See Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd (1966).
Incorrect. Feedback: Contracts for necessaries and beneficial contracts of service are the only contracts that can be enforced against minors. The law pursues two conflicting policies in the case of minors. On the one hand it tries to protect minors from their own inexperience; on the other, it tries to ensure that persons dealing with minors are not dealt with in a harsh manner. See Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd (1966).
Correct. Feedback: Contracts that are enforceable against a minor include those for necessaries, contracts of employment, training and apprenticeship, if they are substantially for the minor's benefit. It is likely that a plumbing course will fulfil the criteria of being a contract of training, which is substantially for Ted's benefit. The other contracts are neither for necessaries, nor for education, training or apprenticeship. See Nash v Inman.
Incorrect. Feedback: Contracts that are enforceable against a minor include those for necessaries, contracts of employment, training and apprenticeship, if they are substantially for the minor's benefit. It is likely that a plumbing course will fulfil the criteria of being a contract of training, which is substantially for Ted's benefit. The other contracts are neither for necessaries, nor for education, training or apprenticeship. See Nash v Inman.
Correct. Feedback: The contract will be void where the drunken person was in such a state as to not understand the nature of what he/she was doing. The other party must however be aware of their state of mind. Such contracts may be affirmed during a sober period.
Incorrect. Feedback: The contract will be void where the drunken person was in such a state as to not understand the nature of what he/she was doing. The other party must however be aware of their state of mind. Such contracts may be affirmed during a sober period.
Correct. Feedback: Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co [1894] is the case where the modern doctrine of restraint of trade can be found. In essence, the rule is that all contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void, unless there are any special factors that exist which justify the restraint. The restraint must also be reasonable between the parties and in the interests of the public.
Incorrect. Feedback: Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co [1894] is the case where the modern doctrine of restraint of trade can be found. In essence, the rule is that all contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void, unless there are any special factors that exist which justify the restraint. The restraint must also be reasonable between the parties and in the interests of the public.
Correct. Feedback: The case of J A Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills [1993] involved a restraint of trade clause preventing the defendant from working in another company in the paper tissue industry for a period of one year of leaving the plaintiff's company. The clause was found not reasonable and could not be enforced.
Incorrect. Feedback: The case of J A Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills [1993] involved a restraint of trade clause preventing the defendant from working in another company in the paper tissue industry for a period of one year of leaving the plaintiff's company. The clause was found not reasonable and could not be enforced.
Correct. Feedback: Under the blue pencil rule, the objectionable part of the contract can be severed, provided that it leaves the remainder of the contract capable of standing alone. An example of the use of the rule can be seen in Goldsoll v Goldman [1915] which concerned a restriction on the sale of real and imitation jewellery.
Incorrect. Feedback: Under the blue pencil rule, the objectionable part of the contract can be severed, provided that it leaves the remainder of the contract capable of standing alone. An example of the use of the rule can be seen in Goldsoll v Goldman [1915] which concerned a restriction on the sale of real and imitation jewellery.
Correct. Feedback: A collateral contract is not illegal at common law. A collateral contract can sometimes be used to avoid illegality.
Incorrect. Feedback: A collateral contract is not illegal at common law. A collateral contract can sometimes be used to avoid illegality.
Correct. Feedback: Drunks are liable to pay a reasonable price for items considered necessaries and can also be liable on a contract if they ratify it when sober.
Incorrect. Feedback: Drunks are liable to pay a reasonable price for items considered necessaries and can also be liable on a contract if they ratify it when sober.