In tutorial module 1
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What was the course of the litigation in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1972] 1 WLR 294?
This case reported the trial only and Mr Gibson was successful.
Mr Gibson was not successful at trial and the Court of Appeal overturned that decision.
Mr Gibson was not successful at trial and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.
Mr Gibson was successful at trial but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What is the 'conventional approach' according to Lord Diplock in Gibson v Manchester City
Council [1972] 1 WLR 294?
Identifying whether, in a course of correspondence, an offer was made which was followed
by an acceptance.
Reviewing the whole course of correspondence between parties and determining whether
they reached agreement.
Identifying whether, in a course of correspondence, a party accepted an 'open' contract.
Enquiring whether any agreement was recorded in writing.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1972] 1 WLR 294 is the decision of what court?
Queens Bench
House of Lords
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
High Court of Australia
Question 4
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What were the facts in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1972] 1 WLR 294?
The case concerned the potential sale of housing owned by the council to Mr Gibson.
The case concerned the potential sale of housing owned by Mr Gibson to the Council.
The case concerned Mr Gibson potentially leasing housing owned by the Council.
The case concerned the Council potentially leasing housing owned by Mr Gibson.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
How did the Court reach its conclusion in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1972] 1 WLR
294?
It construed conversations between the parties.
It construed correspondence (letters, etc) between the parties.
It considered evidence on what the parties intended when they sent correspondence
(letters, etc) to each other.
It construed correspondence (letters, etc) and conversations between the parties.
In tutorial module 2
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
The reported case of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
consisted of:
A joint judgment and two separately concurring judgements.
A joint judgment and a separate dissenting judgement.
A unanimous joint judgement.
A joint judgment and a separate concurring judgement.
Question 2
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
Which of the following was a significant fact that informed the outcome of Ermogenous v
Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95?
The Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc was the Greek Orthodox church itself.
The Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc was not the Greek Orthodox church itself but a
community organisation founded to foster Greek culture as well as the Greek Orthodox
faith.
The agreement created a purely spiritual relationship between the parties.
The agreement between the parties did not create proprietary or economic rights.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
Which of the following correctly describes the proceeding reported in Ermogenous v Greek
Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95?
It is a judgement of the High Court on an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of
South Australia.
It is a judgement of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on an appeal
from an industrial magistrate.
It is a judgement of the High Court on an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
It is a judgement of the Federal Court on an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme
Court of South Australia.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
The facts of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
concerned:
A claim by Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc that Ermogenous was overpaid in respect
of leave entitlements.
A claim by Ermogenous that he was owed overtime.
A claim by Ermogenous that he was unfairly dismissed.
A claim by Ermogenous for unpaid leave entitlements.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What was the outcome of Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209
CLR 95?
Mr Ermogenous occupied a purely spiritual role in a contract enforceable under church law.
The parties intended to be bound but a potential outstanding question was whether the
contract was a 'contract of employment'.
The parties did not intend to be bound by a contract.
The parties intended to be bound under a clear contract of employment.
In tort module 3
Question 1
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571, the majority held that contracts subject to finance
that is ‘satisfactory’ to a party:
Require the party seeking finance to act both honestly and reasonably.
Are void.
Require the party seeking finance to at least act honestly.
Require the party seeking finance to obtain the finance or else be in breach of contract.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571, what did Gibbs CJ and Mason J hold in respect of the
effect of Special Condition 1?
The parties had entered a binding contract, but completion of it was subject to the
fulfilment of Special Condition 1.
The parties had entered a binding contract, but if Special Condition 1 was not fulfilled then
the purchaser was liable for breach of contract.
No contract formed until Special Condition 1 was fulfilled.
If Special Condition 1 was fulfilled then either party could elect to enter a binding contract.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571:
There was a 3-2 majority, which dismissed the appeal.
All judges allowed the appeal.
There was a 3-1 majority, which dismissed the appeal.
There was a 3-1 majority, which allowed the appeal.
Question 4
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571, what did the judgements hold in respect of Special
Condition 1(a) and (b)?
Special Conditions 1(a) and (b) were inserted for the benefit of both parties.
Special Conditions 1(a) and (b) were inserted for the benefit of the seller.
Special Conditions 1(a) and (b) were void.
Special Conditions 1(a) and (b) were inserted for the benefit of the purchaser.
Question 5
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571, what did the High Court decide Special Condition 1
required to be fulfilled?
That the purchaser be subjectively satisfied.
That the seller be subjectively satisfied.
That the purchaser be objectively satisfied.
That the purchaser and seller be objectively satisfied.
Module 4
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What was the outcome of Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988)
165 CLR 107?
McNiece Bros was a party to the relevant insurance contract and was not able to enforce it.
McNiece Bros was a party to the relevant insurance contract and was able to enforce it.
McNiece Bros was not a party to the relevant insurance contract but could sue for the
insurance payout.
The relevant insurance contract was void for uncertainty.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107, Toohey J
held that:
An exception to the rules of privity should be created for third parties named in insurance
contracts.
The rules of privity of contract should be overruled.
The insurance contract created a trust relationship for the benefit of McNiece Bros.
Blue Circle was an agent for McNiece Bros when it entered the insurance contract.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107, what had
the NSW Court of Appeal found?
That, at common law, a named beneficiary in an insurance contract cannot enforce it if they
are not party to it.
That privity was no longer good law in New South Wales.
That, at common law, a named beneficiary in an insurance contract may enforce it even if
they are not party to it.
That Blue Circle had contracted as agent for McNiece Bros.
Question 4
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107, Brennan J
held that:
The rules of privity of contract should be overruled.
The insurance contract created a trust relationship for the benefit of McNiece Bros.
There is no exception to the rules of privity which allow third parties named in insurance
contracts to sue on them.
A promisor who has accepted consideration for a promise to benefit a third party is unjustly
enriched at the expense of the third party to the extent that the promise is unfulfilled.
Question 5
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107, Gaudron J
held that:
A promisor who has accepted consideration for a promise to benefit a third party is
unjustly enriched at the expense of the third party to the extent that the promise is
unfulfilled.
The rules of privity of contract should be overruled.
Blue Circle was an agent for McNiece Bros when it entered the insurance contract.
The insurance contract created a trust relationship for the benefit of McNiece Bros.
Module 5
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471, the High Court
held that:
There was one agreement consisting of oral and written terms.
An earlier oral agreement was a collateral contract to a later written agreement.
An earlier oral agreement discharged a later written agreement.
A later written agreement discharged an earlier oral agreement.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What were the facts of Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR
471?
The case concerned partners in a limited partnership, which managed an aquaculture
scheme, enforcing a contract against defaulting investors.
The case concerned investors in a failed aquaculture scheme enforcing a contract against
partners in a limited liability partnership.
The case concerned an assignee enforcing a loan agreement against defaulting borrowers.
The case concerned borrowers enforcing a loan agreement against a defaulting lender.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471, what doctrines
did the respondents rely on to obtain relief?
They argued non est factum.
They argued that the signed agreement should be rectified.
They argued that the parties entered a collateral contract.
They did not rely on any particular doctrine to avoid the signed agreement.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In JJ Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435, what had happened in the lower
courts?
The trial judge held that no term was breached. The Full Court held that a term of a
collateral contract was breached.
The trial judge held that no term was breached. The Full Court agreed.
The trial judge held that a term of the contract for sale was breached. The Full Court held
that a term of a collateral contract was breached.
The trial judge held that a term of a collateral contract was breached. The Full Court agreed.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In JJ Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435, what did the High Court say about
collateral contracts?
That reliance on a pre-contractual statement is sufficient by itself to make it a collateral
term.
That terms of a collateral contract must not contradict the main contract.
That the parol evidence rule excludes collateral contracts.
That any pre-contractual representation relied upon as being a term of a collateral contract
must be promissory.
Module 6
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, what did Gummow and McHugh JJ say
about the ‘test’ in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
(‘BP Refinery’)?
BP Refinery provides the usual test to apply when implying a term to achieve business
efficacy, if the contract is informal or is partly written and oral.
BP Refinery provides the usual test to apply when implying a term to achieve business
efficacy, if the contract has been reduced to writing.
BP Refinery provides the test to apply in all cases when implying terms.
BP Refinery provides the usual test to apply when implying a term based on trade custom, if
the contract has been reduced to writing.
Question 2
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, what did Gummow and McHugh JJ
hold that the employees had to show to imply a term based on the intentions of the parties
in this case?
The term could be implied to make the contract more fair or effective.
The term had to be necessary for the reasonable or effective operation of the contract and
accepted by the parties as a matter so obvious that it went without saying.
The term would have been accepted by the reasonable person as self-evident.
The term had to satisfy the criteria set out in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of
Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What were the facts of Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410?
Australian Airlines had unconscientiously coerced the plaintiffs to accept less generous work
entitlements.
Australian Airlines had fired the plaintiffs for wrongdoing and the plaintiffs asserted that
they had been unfairly dismissed.
Australian Airlines had underpaid the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs asserted that they had
been subject to wage theft.
Australian Airlines had made the plaintiff's positions redundant and the plaintiffs asserted
that they had been unfairly dismissed.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, what did Gummow and McHugh JJ say
about terms implied by common law?
They can be excluded if inconsistent only with express, written terms in the contract.
They cannot be excluded.
They can be excluded if inconsistent with the express terms of the contract.
They can be excluded if legislation permits them to be excluded.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, what did Brennan CJ, Dawson and
Toohey JJ hold?
That the relevant term was implied in fact to achieve business efficacy.
That the relevant term was implied by law.
That the relevant term was not implied.
That the relevant term was implied by trade custom.
Module 7
Question 1
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693, what did the joint judgement consider to
reach its decision?
The text of the service agreement and the surrounding circumstances.
Parol evidence on the parties' understanding of the service agreement.
The text of the service agreement, the surrounding circumstances and evidence of what
each party actually intended.
The text of the service agreement.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693, what did the joint judgement say of the
employer's reliance on Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161?
It was misplaced because Bell concerned avoiding a contract, whereas this case concerned
enforcing a term.
The employer did not rely on Bell.
It was appropriate because Bell concerned enforcing a term, whereas this case concerned
avoiding a contract.
It was misplaced because Bell concerned enforcing a term, whereas this case concerned
avoiding a contract.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693, the joint judgement endorsed which of the
following rules about termination for breach?
An innocent party who terminates a contract cannot rely on a breach of contract that they
did not know about at the time that they terminated to justify the termination.
An innocent party who terminates a contract may rely on a breach of contract that they did
not know about at the time that they terminated to justify the termination.
A defaulting party is obliged to disclose their breaches of contract to allow an innocent
party the opportunity to properly terminate it.
Parties cannot vary a contract without completely rescinding the existing contract and
replacing it with a new contract.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693, what did the High Court find in respect of
the relevant contract?
That a later formal agreement completely discharged and replaced a pre-existing
agreement with a new agreement.
That a later formal agreement completely merely varied a pre-existing agreement.
That a later formal agreement completely discharged a pre-existing agreement.
That a later formal agreement was ineffective so a pre-existing agreement continued to bind
the parties.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693, the joint judgment observed that the legal
obligations of employment relationships are typically found:
In equity and statute.
In contract law, equity and statute.
In contract law and equity.
In contract law.
Module 8
Question 1
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR
337, Mason J said of the parol evidence rule that:
If the language of the written contract is ambiguous, then the contract is too uncertain
because the court cannot consider evidence extrinsic to the written contract.
If the language of the written contract is ambiguous, then the court may consider evidence
of facts known to both parties at the time of contract to resolve the ambiguity.
The question is misleading. Mason J did not discuss the parol evidence rule.
If the language of the written contract is ambiguous, then the court may consider the
subjective intentions of the parties to resolve what they actually meant.
Question 2
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR
337, Mason J characterised the process of implying a term as:
An exercise in rewriting the contract to reflect what the parties subjectively intended.
The question is misleading. Mason J did not discuss the implication of terms.
An exercise in incorporating terms by notice.
An exercise in interpreting the contract albeit an unorthodox one.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR
337, Codelfa sought to imply a term:
The question is misleading. Codelfa did not seek to imply a term.
As a matter of law.
To give business efficacy to the contract.
In accordance with trade custom.
Question 4
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
Which of the following were legal issues raised by the parties in Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd
v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Frustration
Implied terms.
Incorporation of express terms.
Rectification
1 and 4.
1, 2, 3 and 4.
1 and 3.
1 and 2.
Question 5
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR
337, Mason J said of frustration that:
A contract is frustrated when the court can imply a term which would release the parties
from further performance on the happening of a supervening event.
A contract is frustrated when the common foundation of the contract disappears after the
contract forms.
A contract is frustrated when the parties agree to terminate the contract after a
supervening event.
The question is misleading. Mason J did not discuss frustration.
Module 9
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australian Finance Ltd (2010) 241
CLR 357, what did French CJ and Kiefel J say about pleading silence as misleading or
deceptive conduct?
That silence cannot be misleading, so pleadings should identify positive conduct that is
misleading.
The pleading should identify whether the silence itself is misleading or just one element in
a course of conduct that, as a whole, is misleading.
The pleading should identify the positive false representation of fact that is 'really being
said'.
That negligent plaintiffs cannot rely on silence as misleading or deceptive.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australian Finance Ltd (2010) 241
CLR 357, what did the High Court ultimately find?
That Miller had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to disclose a certain
fact.
That Miller had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
That Miller had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct because its conduct was
not in trade or commerce.
That Miller had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by positively misrepresenting a
fact.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australian Finance Ltd (2010) 241
CLR 357, the High Court:
Remitted the matter to the Victorian Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
Allowed the appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal.
Remitted the matter to the trial judge for reconsideration.
Dismissed the appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australian Finance Ltd (2010) 241
CLR 357, French CJ and Kiefel J held that:
Section 18 generally does not require a party to commercial negotiations to volunteer
information unless the contract involves insurance and is, therefore, uberrimae fidei.
Section 18 generally does require a party to commercial negotiations to volunteer
information to avoid incurring liability.
Section 18 generally does not require a party to commercial negotiations to volunteer
information unless it appears that the other party is unable to look after their own interests.
Section 18 generally does not require a party to commercial negotiations to volunteer
information.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australian Finance Ltd (2010) 241
CLR 357, what did French CJ and Kiefel J say about Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992)
39 FCR 31?
That it was authority for the proposition that silence itself can be misleading under s 18
only if it gives rise to a false implied statement of fact.
That it was wrongly decided.
That it was the first case to recognise that silence itself can be misleading under s 18, even if
it does not give rise to an implied false statement of fact.
That the reasonable expectation test deriving from that case is the sole test that applies in
all cases of silence alleged as misleading or deceptive.
Module 10
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, what did Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ hold?
That the respondents had engaged in equitable unconscionable conduct.
That the respondents were not liable.
That the respondents had breached Australian Consumer Law s 20.
That the respondents had breached Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act
2010 (Cth) s 12CB.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, what was the effect of the certificates signed by
the appellant according to Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ?
They reduced the appellant's special disadvantage because he was independently advised.
They were evidence of exploitation because they were designed to put distance between
the parties.
They were sufficient to disprove knowledge of the appellant's special disadvantage.
They were irrelevant to the ultimate decision in the appeal.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What was the legal relationship between the appellant and respondents in Stubbings v Jams
2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6?
The appellant agreed to buy land from the respondent.
The appellant guaranteed repayment of a loan made by the respondents to the
appellant's company.
The appellant's company agreed to buy land from the respondents.
The appellant owed money on a loan between him and the respondents.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, why were the respondents liable?
Because they were actually aware of the appellant's special disadvantage.
Because they engaged in asset based lending.
Because they were attributed the knowledge of their agent.
This is a false statement. The respondents were not liable.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, why did the parties describe the relevant loan as
a business loan?
To avoid the application of the Australian Consumer Law.
To avoid the application of the National Credit Code.
To avoid the application of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act
2010 (Cth).
Because the loan was made to a company.
Module 10
Question 1
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, what did Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ hold?
That the respondents had engaged in equitable unconscionable conduct.
That the respondents were not liable.
That the respondents had breached Australian Consumer Law s 20.
That the respondents had breached Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act
2010 (Cth) s 12CB.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, what was the effect of the certificates signed by
the appellant according to Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ?
They reduced the appellant's special disadvantage because he was independently advised.
They were evidence of exploitation because they were designed to put distance between
the parties.
They were sufficient to disprove knowledge of the appellant's special disadvantage.
They were irrelevant to the ultimate decision in the appeal.
Question 3
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What was the legal relationship between the appellant and respondents in Stubbings v Jams
2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6?
The appellant agreed to buy land from the respondent.
The appellant guaranteed repayment of a loan made by the respondents to the
appellant's company.
The appellant's company agreed to buy land from the respondents.
The appellant owed money on a loan between him and the respondents.
Question 4
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, why were the respondents liable?
Because they were actually aware of the appellant's special disadvantage.
Because they engaged in asset based lending.
Because they were attributed the knowledge of their agent.
This is a false statement. The respondents were not liable.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, why did the parties describe the relevant loan as
a business loan?
To avoid the application of the Australian Consumer Law.
To avoid the application of the National Credit Code.
To avoid the application of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act
2010 (Cth).
Because the loan was made to a company.
Module 11
Question 1
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395, what did the majority joint
judgement hold?
The relevant transaction was not enforceable under Commercial Bank of Australian Limited
v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447.
The relevant transaction was not enforceable under Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649.
The relevant transaction was enforceable under Commercial Bank of Australian Limited v
Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447.
The relevant transaction was enforceable under Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649.
Question 2
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395, what did Mrs Garcia seek by
commencing proceedings?
A declaration that a mortgage and guarantees she signed were not binding.
To enforce a guarantee and mortgage against her husband.
A declaration that some guarantees that she signed were not binding.
A declaration that a mortgage that she signed was not binding.
Question 3
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395, what did Callinan J hold?
His Honour upheld the principle in Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649 and found for Mrs
Garcia on on this principle.
His Honour rejected the principle in Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649 but found for Mrs
Garcia on a broader equitable principle.
His Honour upheld the principle in Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649 but held that Mrs
Garcia was not entitled to relief under it.
His Honour rejected the principle in Yerkey v Jones (1940) 63 CLR 649 but found for Mrs
Garcia under Commercial Bank of Australia Lid v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447.
Question 4
0.5 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
In Garcia v National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395, the majority joint judgement held
that the Yerkey v Jones principle rests on what assumption?
That husbands and wives are equals in a marriage relationship.
That the marriage relationship is typically one of trust and confidence where decisions
may be routinely left to the husband to make.
That women occupy positions of economic inferiority to men and are often exploited.
That the relationship of husband and wife is fiduciary.
Question 5
0 / 0.5 pts
Multiple choice
What puts a creditor on notice, according to the majority joint judgement in Garcia v
National Australia Bank (1998) 194 CLR 395?
When the creditor knows that a women is volunteering to guarantee a man's debts.
When the creditor owes a common law duty of care to the wife and breaches that duty by
failing to properly enquire about whether she is subject to the undue influence of her
husband.
When the creditor knows that a wife, who is a managing director and general manager of a
company with her husband, is proposes to guarantee the debts of that company.
When the creditor knows that a wife is volunteering to guarantee the debts of her husband.