All Practice Exams
100+ Free NCA Contracts Practice Questions
NCA Canadian Contract Law Examination practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
Varies by sitting Pass Rate
100+ Questions
100% Free
1 / 100
Question 1
Score: 0/0
A supplier, knowing the buyer urgently needs goods to meet a critical deadline, threatens to breach an existing contract unless the buyer agrees to pay substantially more, leaving the buyer no reasonable alternative. The buyer agrees under protest. This is best analyzed as:
A
B
C
D
to track
Same family resources
Explore More NCA Canadian Law Exams
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
2026 Statistics
Key Facts: NCA Contracts Exam
$500 CAD
Fee Per NCA Exam (plus taxes)
Federation of Law Societies of Canada (2025-2026)
3 hours
Maximum Exam Duration
National Committee on Accreditation
Open-book
Exam Format (fact-based, written)
National Committee on Accreditation
50%
Passing Grade (pass/fail)
National Committee on Accreditation
Bhasin v Hrynew
Leading Canadian Good-Faith Case
Supreme Court of Canada (2014)
100+
Practice Questions Here
OpenExamPrep question bank
The NCA Canadian Contract Law exam is a substantive subject for internationally trained lawyers seeking to qualify in a Canadian common-law province. Administered by the National Committee on Accreditation under the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, it is open-book, fact-based, and up to three hours, with short-answer, essay, and problem questions graded pass/fail (50%). The substantive content covers contract formation (offer and acceptance, certainty, intention, consideration, and the pre-existing duty rule from Gilbert Steel and Williams v Roffey), promissory estoppel, privity and the Canadian principled exceptions (London Drugs, Fraser River), terms and interpretation (Sattva), exclusion clauses (Tercon), the vitiating factors (mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability under Uber v Heller), frustration, breach, and remedies (Hadley v Baxendale remoteness, mitigation, penalties, and Semelhago on specific performance). A distinctly Canadian theme is the duty of good faith in contractual performance (Bhasin v Hrynew, Callow, Wastech). The exam fee is $500 CAD plus taxes. This free OpenExamPrep bank provides 100 multiple-choice knowledge-prep questions on that content; note the real exam uses written answers, not multiple choice.
Sample NCA Contracts Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your NCA Contracts exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1A hardware store displays a chainsaw in its window with a price tag of $199. A customer enters, points to the chainsaw, and says, "I accept your offer to sell it for $199." The store refuses to sell. Applying the Canadian common law on display of goods, what is the correct characterization of the price-tagged display?
A.An invitation to treat, so no contract was formed by the customer's words
B.A binding offer that the customer accepted, forming a contract
C.A unilateral offer accepted by the customer's conduct in pointing
D.A counter-offer that the store was bound to honour
Explanation: The display of goods with a price, like goods on a shelf, is an invitation to treat, not an offer. As in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists, the offer is made by the customer at the point of sale, which the retailer is free to accept or decline. No contract arose from the customer's purported acceptance.
2A company advertises a smoke ball, promising to pay £100 to anyone who uses it as directed and still catches influenza, and states it has deposited funds in a bank to show its sincerity. A purchaser uses the ball as directed and catches influenza. The company argues there was no contract because the advertisement was a mere puff and no acceptance was communicated. Which analysis is correct?
A.The advertisement was an invitation to treat, so the purchaser made the only offer
B.The advertisement was a unilateral offer accepted by performance, and notification of acceptance was not required
C.No contract formed because the purchaser never communicated acceptance before performing
D.The deposit of funds was irrelevant and the promise was an unenforceable gratuitous statement
Explanation: Following Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, an advertisement promising payment on performance of specified conditions can be a unilateral offer to the world. Performance of the conditions constitutes acceptance, and in unilateral contracts communication of acceptance before performance is not required. The bank deposit showed an intention to be legally bound, defeating the mere-puff argument.
3A seller emails an offer to sell equipment for $50,000. The buyer replies, "I accept, provided you include free delivery and a 12-month warranty." The seller does not respond. Has a contract formed on the original terms?
A.Yes, because the buyer used the word 'accept'
B.Yes, because silence by the seller amounts to acceptance of the new terms
C.No, because the buyer's reply was a counter-offer that rejected and destroyed the original offer
D.No, because offers can never be accepted by email under Canadian law
Explanation: An acceptance must be unqualified and mirror the offer. A purported acceptance that introduces new terms (free delivery and a warranty) is a counter-offer, which rejects the original offer and terminates the power of acceptance, as in Hyde v Wrench. No contract formed on the original terms, and the seller's silence is not acceptance of the new terms.
4An offeror mails an offer on Monday. The offeree posts a properly addressed and stamped letter of acceptance on Wednesday. The offeror mails a revocation on Tuesday that reaches the offeree on Thursday, after the acceptance was posted. Under the traditional postal acceptance rule, when did acceptance take effect?
A.When the offeror actually received the acceptance letter
B.When the offeree read the offeror's revocation on Thursday
C.No contract formed because the revocation was sent first
D.When the offeree posted the acceptance letter on Wednesday
Explanation: Under the postal acceptance rule (Adams v Lindsell; Household Fire v Grant), acceptance by post is effective when the letter is properly posted, not when received. Acceptance took effect Wednesday on posting. The revocation is effective only on receipt (Thursday), so it arrived too late to prevent the contract.
5An uncle promises his nephew, "If you stop smoking until you turn 21, I will pay you $5,000." The nephew refrains from smoking for the agreed period. The uncle dies and his estate refuses to pay, arguing the nephew suffered no real detriment and gave nothing of economic value. Is there consideration?
A.Yes, because the nephew gave up a legal freedom he was otherwise entitled to exercise
B.No, because abstaining from smoking benefits the nephew and is not a detriment
C.No, because consideration must always be money or goods
D.Yes, but only because the promise was made in writing
Explanation: Consideration may be a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee; forbearance from exercising a legal right one is entitled to exercise is good consideration (Hamer v Sidway). By giving up his legal liberty to smoke at the uncle's request, the nephew provided consideration, even though abstaining may also benefit him.
6A homeowner and contractor agree on a fixed price to build a deck. Midway through, the contractor demands an extra $2,000 to finish the same work he is already contractually obligated to perform, threatening to walk off the job. The homeowner agrees but later refuses to pay the extra. Applying the traditional pre-existing duty rule reaffirmed in Canada by Gilbert Steel v University Construction, is the extra promise enforceable?
A.Yes, because the contractor provided fresh consideration by completing on time
B.No, because performing a pre-existing contractual duty owed to the same party is not consideration for the extra promise
C.Yes, because any agreed price modification is automatically binding
D.No, because construction contracts can never be modified
Explanation: Under the pre-existing duty rule, doing what one is already contractually bound to do for the same promisee is not fresh consideration for a promise of extra payment. In Gilbert Steel Ltd v University Construction Ltd, the Ontario Court of Appeal held a price-increase promise unenforceable for want of consideration where the supplier gave nothing new. The promise to pay $2,000 more is therefore unsupported.
7A subcontractor is behind schedule on a fixed-price job. The main contractor, who will face a penalty from the owner if the project is late, promises the subcontractor extra payment per unit to ensure timely completion, and the subcontractor finishes on time. The main contractor obtains a practical benefit (avoiding the penalty and the cost of finding a replacement) and there is no economic duress. Under the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros, which Canadian courts have considered, is the extra promise enforceable?
A.No, because the pre-existing duty rule absolutely bars enforcement
B.Yes, but only if the subcontractor signed a new written contract under seal
C.Yes, because a practical benefit obtained without duress can constitute consideration for the modification
D.No, because practical benefit is never recognized in any Canadian court
Explanation: In Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, the English Court of Appeal held that where a party obtains a practical benefit from securing performance of an existing duty, and the modification is free of economic duress, that practical benefit can amount to good consideration. Several Canadian courts (e.g., NAV Canada v Greater Fredericton Airport) have moved further, enforcing duress-free modifications even without fresh consideration. The promise here is enforceable.
8A debtor owes a creditor $10,000, now due. The creditor agrees in conversation to accept $7,000 in full satisfaction, and the debtor pays $7,000. The creditor later sues for the remaining $3,000. Applying the traditional common law rule in Foakes v Beer, can the creditor recover the balance?
A.No, because part payment of a debt is always full satisfaction
B.No, because the debtor relied on the creditor's promise
C.Yes, but only if the agreement was made under seal
D.Yes, because part payment of a debt already due is not consideration for a promise to forgive the balance
Explanation: Under Foakes v Beer, payment of a lesser sum than the full debt already due is not consideration for a promise to discharge the balance, because the debtor gives nothing new. Absent fresh consideration, a seal, or an applicable estoppel, the creditor may still recover the remaining $3,000.
9A landlord promises a tenant during wartime to reduce the rent by half because the building is largely vacant. The tenant pays the reduced rent for several years in reliance. After the war, the landlord seeks to recover the full rent for the period the property was again fully occupied and going forward. Under Central London Property Trust v High Trees House, what is the likely result?
A.Promissory estoppel suspends the strict legal right during the reliance period, but the landlord may resume full rent on reasonable notice once conditions change
B.The landlord can recover all the back rent because the promise lacked consideration
C.The promise to reduce rent is fully enforceable forever as an independent contract
D.The tenant can sue the landlord for damages for breach of the rent-reduction promise
Explanation: In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, Denning J held that a gratuitous promise intended to be relied on and in fact relied on may be enforced in equity to prevent the promisor resiling, even without consideration. Promissory estoppel here suspends the right to full rent during the reliance period but does not extinguish it; the landlord may resume full rent prospectively on reasonable notice once the vacancy conditions end.
10A promisee seeks to use promissory estoppel as the basis of a fresh claim for money, asserting it as a free-standing cause of action where no contract otherwise exists. Under the orthodox Canadian and English position on the scope of promissory estoppel, which statement is most accurate?
A.Promissory estoppel always creates an independent right to sue for the promised sum
B.Promissory estoppel is generally a shield, not a sword, and does not by itself create a new cause of action
C.Promissory estoppel requires consideration to operate
D.Promissory estoppel can only be raised by the promisor, not the promisee
Explanation: Promissory estoppel operates defensively to prevent a promisor from enforcing strict legal rights inconsistently with a promise relied upon; in the orthodox view it is a shield, not a sword (Combe v Combe), and does not found an independent cause of action. It requires a pre-existing legal relationship, a clear promise, reliance, and inequity, but not consideration.
About the NCA Contracts Practice Questions
Verified exam format metadata for NCA Canadian Contract Law Examination is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.