Commercial Law MCQ Practice — UoL LLB

Exam intelligence

All topics in Commercial Law

Every topic in the knowledge graph — mapped from the official syllabus and textbook.

Commercial Law
Commercial law - Introduction
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
Sale of Goods Act 1893
Partnership Act 1890
Marine Insurance Act 1906
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Agency: What is an agency?
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676
The Queen v Kane [1901] 1 QB 472
Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association [1891] 1 QB 370
Garnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd and Bunge Corpn [1968] AC 1130
Agency: Types of agent
Lowther v Harris [1927] 1 KB 393
Sobell Industries Ltd v Cory Brothers & Co [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 82
Official Assignee of Madras v Mercantile Bank of India Ltd [1935] AC 53
Ireland v Livingston (1872) LR 5 HL 395
Stevens v Biller [1883] 25 Ch D 31
Robinson v Mollett (1875) LR 7 HL 802
Budberg v Jerwood and Ward [1934] 51 TLR 99
Baring v Corrie [1818] 2 B & Ald 137
Jerome v Bentley & Co [1952] 2 All ER 114
Gabriel & Sons v Churchill & Sim [1914] 3 KB 1272
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
Factors Act 1889
Agency: Creation of agency
Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29
Mercantile International Group plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 288
AMB Imballaggi Plastici SRL v Pacflex Ltd [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 249
Agency: The actual authority of the agent
European Asian Bank AG v Punjab & Sind Bank (No 2) [1983] 1 WLR 642
Cooper v National Westminster Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3035 (QB)
Bryant, Powis, and Bryant Ltd v Law Banque du Peuple [1891-94] All ER 1253
Nickalls v Merry [1875] LR 7 HL 530
Patel v Standard Chartered Bank [2001] All ER (D) 66
Rosenbaum v Belson [1900] 2 Ch 267
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549
SMC Electronics Ltd v Akhter Computers Ltd [2001] 1 BCLC 433
Agency: Apparent authority
Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 WLR 1002
Sea Emerald SA v Prominvestbank [2008] EWHC 1979 (Comm)
Armagas Ltd v Mundogas [1986] AC 717
Nayyar & Others v Sapte & Anor [2009]
Rama Corpn Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investment Ltd [1951] 2 QB 147
ING Re (UK) Limited v R&V Versicherung AG [2006] EWHC 1544 (Comm)
The Tatra [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51
First Energy Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194
Overbrooke Estates Ltd v Glencombe Properties Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 1335
Misrepresentation Act 1967
Agency: Usual authority - Watteau v Fenwick
Mellor v Lydiate [1914] 3 KB 1141
Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 346
Sign-O-Lite Plastics Ltd v Metropolitan Life Insurance Co [1990] 73 DLR (4th) 541
Graham v Stirling [1922] SC 90
Rhodian River Shipping Co SA v Halla Maritime Corp [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373
Kinahan & Co v Parry [1911] 1 KB 459
Agency: Ratification

Live preview

See what you'll practice

Real questions from our database — the exact format you'll get on WhatsApp.

SaveMeTutor

● online

Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 WLR 1002

Question 1

What distinguishes Spiro v Lintern from cases based on usual authority?

11:31 ✓✓

A Spiro v Lintern relies on the agent’s customary role, not principal conduct.

B Spiro v Lintern is based on the principal’s conduct creating third-party belief. ✓

C Usual authority requires express representation by the principal.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Spiro v Lintern is about apparent authority via principal conduct; usual authority (Watteau v Fenwick) doesn’t require representation. Option A reverses the doctrines. Option C is incorrect—usual authority needs no representation.

11:31 ✓✓

Stevens v Biller [1883] 25 Ch D 31

Question 2

What did Stevens v Biller illustrate about equitable interests in shares?

11:31 ✓✓

A Only legal title is relevant in share transactions.

B Equitable interests can exist independently and be enforced against third parties in certain circumstances. ✓

C Share transfers are invalid unless registered immediately.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Stevens v Biller recognised equitable proprietary claims in shares, even pre-registration. Option A ignores equity; C misstates registration rules, which are not always immediate.

11:31 ✓✓

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas [1986] AC 717

Question 3

A junior employee signs a multimillion-pound contract. The principal claims no authority was given. Can the third party rely on apparent authority?

11:31 ✓✓

A Yes, if the employee held a senior title.

B Only if the principal clearly represented that such employees have such power. ✓

C Yes, because high-value contracts imply broader authority.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Armagas v Mundogas requires clear representation for major acts. Option A is insufficient—title alone doesn’t bind. Option C creates a false rule—value increases scrutiny, not authority.

11:31 ✓✓

Pricing

Simple, transparent pricing

Try everything free for 3 days. No credit card needed to start.

Free Trial 3 Days

PKR 0 / 3 days

Full access — try everything before you commit.

✓ Unlimited questions
✓ All 22 subjects
✓ Instant explanations with case citations
✓ Spaced repetition (SM-2)
✓ Score tracking + weak-spot detection
✓ Exam mode with timed tests

Start Free Trial

No sign-up · No credit card · Instant access

Monthly Best Value

PKR 1,999 / month

Less than a single tutoring session. Cancel anytime.

✓ Everything in Free Trial
✓ Unlimited questions forever
✓ 70,000+ exam-quality MCQs
✓ Questions from real past papers
✓ AI-powered study plans
✓ Priority support

Start Free, Pay Later

Pay only after your 3-day trial ends

💼 Commercial Law
MCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Commercial Law

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Commercial Law?

💼 Commercial LawMCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Commercial Law

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Commercial Law?

💼 Commercial Law
MCQ Practice