There is one law case study to read. There are five (5) multiple choice questions to answer for the case study. Each question is worth one (1) mark each. There is only one correct answer for each question. Please choose only one answer from each of the available options. Please answer all questions.

Case Study: Road Inc. was a road construction firm which obtained a contract from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. The Ministry provided the firm with contract documents (drawings and specifications) prepared by ABC Inc., a firm of engineering consultants. The contract documents stated that the specifications and drawings were for general information purposes and were not guaranteed for accuracy in any way. Road Inc. lost considerable money on the project due to errors in the contract documents and then sued both ABC Inc. and the individual engineers who sealed the documents, for an undisclosed amount of damages.

What is one thing that must be true for Road Incs case for damages to succeed?

	A.	There must be intent to deceive and profit on the part of the defendant.
	B.	There must be a strong, established relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
	C.	There must be a reliance on the information in the contract documents that was foreseeable.

QUESTION 42

1. Why might Road Inc. have a better chance of receiving damages under tort law than under contract law?

   	A.	The amount of damages awarded under tort law is usually higher than under contract law.
   	B.	Breach of contract cases are more expensive than tort cases.
   	C.	There does not appear to be a contract between Road Inc. and ABC Inc.

1 points

QUESTION 43

1. Under what legal action do you think Road Inc. would have the best chance at recovering damages?

   	A.	Quantum meruit
   	B.	Public nuisance
   	C.	Negligent misrepresentation

1 points

QUESTION 44

1. Why might the exclusion clause in ABCs documents not apply in this case?

   	A.	A professional standard of care may exist.
   	B.	The Ministry assumed the risk for errors in ABCs work.
   	C.	The exclusion clause is not detailed enough.

1 points

QUESTION 45

1. Why might the case against the individual engineers be less likely to succeed than the case against ABC Inc.?

   	A.	The individual engineers would not have liability insurance.
   	B.	A duty of care between the individual engineers and Road Inc. may be more difficult to prove.
   	C.	A document seal attests that a qualified engineer prepared the drawing, therefore the engineers were qualified to do the work.