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 purpose of liability clauses is "to limit commercial and financial exposure"- this is a direct quote from p.2. Liability is the amount that a company owes to another party- this is why contracts will focus on limiting their liability as much as possible.

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

"A contract between an end customer and a company which has full responsibility for its perfor-mance" is the correct answer. This is the definition of Prime Contract given on p. 47

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

3 is the correct answer. This question is testing your understanding of 'consequential loss' which is explained on p.109. Consequential loss is where you can claim damages for incidental loss (loss that isn't a direct cause of the breach of the contract, such as future earnings). In this scenario the breach is the late delivery and the incidental damage is John not being able to sell any chocolate in his shop or make his Easter Eggs. There are questions like this in the real exam- remember to think what the textbook would say and don't overthink this. The scenario doesn't always give you a lot of information (for example this doesn't say if there is a contract in place) so think- which of these four options is the most logical and what is this question trying to test me on.

Explanation

"A Guarantee is a secondary obligation of a contract' and 'A guarantor's responsibility cannot be higher than the Principle' are the correct answers. Guarantees are explained on p.28. Be careful not to confuse this with Warranty. A promise to repair or replace an item within a defined period of time is the definition of a warranty. That was put in there to trick you. Sorry. Remember a Guaran-tee is to do something when the Principle of the contract fails to do it. It's most common in leasing agreements- if you're a young person, you'll often need a responsible adult / parent to sign the lease as your Guarantor. As a Guarantor, they promise to pay the rent if you're unable to. Legally they can't be asked to do any more than you are assigned to do in the contract. So if your rent is £500 a month, that's all they can be asked to pay if you don't pay it. The primary obligation is between you and the landlord. The secondary obligation is between the guarantor and you.

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

Explanation

Negotiation is usually the default method for resolving disputes. This is a direct quote from p.63

Explanation

Innominate - the conflict resolution process would determine if the clause is a condition or a war-ranty. Before there's a breach there's no way to know, so it's classed as an Innominate Term. P. 43. Types of contract terms comes up a lot in the exam. Learn these.

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

Table Description automatically generated

It's reputational damage as the scenario mentions 'bad press'

Explanation

If you're not happy with the decision of an adjudication you can appeal the decision. So option 2 is correct. If the appeal is turned down then unfortunately there's not much more you can do as adjudication is binding and legally enforceable. See p. 143 for more info on adjudication

Explanation

A breach of representation is a major/ fundamental breach and allows the innocent party to rescind the contract and claim damages. A Breach of Representation is when you provide false information about who you are- this might have been a fundamental reason as to why the contract went ahead. If it turns out not to be true, the other party has the right to cancel the contract and claim damages. See p.126

Explanation

Negotiation isn't an alternative dispute resolution because it's supposed to be the 'default' dispute resolution- the one you automatically do when a problem occurs. Only if negotiation fails should you turn to ADR. P. 142

Explanation

They should include service credits and a service level agreement. Service Credits allow the buyer to claim back if the service drops below an agreed standard. That standard needs to be clearly out-lined in an SLA. See p.31 for more details

Explanation

The correct answer is 1. The statement is True so the answer needs to start with 'yes'. Therefore options 3 and 4 should be discounted. Option 2 is incorrect a warranty does NOT affect the prime benefit of the contract. See p. 126 for more details on Contractual Warranties and Conditions

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

The answer is avoid because they have postponed a meeting.

Explanation

The correct answer is 3 - 'yes there is a termination clause in the contract'. In this scenario it would be immoral for GoGo Ltd to cancel, but it wouldn't be illegal. They have the right to use the clause that's been put into the contract. It's possible that Reny might sue for damages, but this doesn't prevent GoGo Ltd from cancelling the order (they might be okay with paying the damages). There is a very similar question to this in the exam. Termination clauses are discussed on p.134 - I recommend brushing up on this topic before the exam.