CIPS L5M3 - Managing Contractual Risk

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

This is a minor breach. This is the definition as given in the study guide on p. 48

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

This is arbitration as it involves a panel.

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

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

The correct answers are as follows:

Table Description automatically generated

This is mediation - there's a third party with no powers. The answer can't be negotiation as negotiation doesn't have a third party. The answer can't be litigation or arbitration as the third party here does have decision making power.