Practice L4M3 Exam Online

Question 1

Sharaton Foods Holding is looking for a vegetable harvesting and packaging system. They use the performance specification in the tendering process. What are the benefits of using this type of specification?

1. Provide opportunities for innovation
2. Potentially limit the competition among the suppliers
3. Require less effort to produce a specification
4. Allow the end user to provide details on technical aspects

A : 1 and 4 only

B : 1 and 3 only

C : 1 and 2 only

D : 2 and 3 only

Answer: B

Question 2

Which of the following are likely to be advantages of using invitation to tender? Select TWO that apply:

A : Quick implementation

B : Short turnaround times

C : Reducing risks of bribery and corruption

D : Driving forward planning culture

E : Lower administration costs

Answer: C,D

Question 3

Which of the following are reasons why a purchaser wants to embed a subcontracting clause into the main contract? Select TWO that apply:

A : To improve supply chain transparency

B : To condemn whole liabilities to subcontractors

C : To reduce the main contract complexity

D : To keep main contractor liable

E : To induce the conflicts between the main contractor and subcontractors

Answer: A,D

Question 4

Which of the following is set down in statute as a liability that exists without any need to prove fault?

A : Strict liability

B : Contingent liability

C : Current liability

D : Non-current liability

Answer: A

Question 5

MWB operates serviced offices in central London. Rock entered a contractual licence with MWB to occupy office space in Marble Arch and had accumulated licence fees in arrears. The original licence agreement contained a ‘No Oral Modification’ clause that said: 'All variations to this licence must be agreed, set out in writing and signed on behalf of both parties before they take effect'.
After 6 months, Rock director re-negotiated to extend payment period over phone call and MWB credit controller agreed his proposal. Is this agreement considered as an effective variation to the original licence agreement?

A : No, because the mechanism for variation has been set out in the original contract

B : Yes, because parties who agree to altering the original contract orally despite a ‘No Oral Modification’ clause, must have intended to dispense with the clause

C : No, because Rock director assumed that the variation was effective and convinced credit controller to believe it

D : Yes, because the credit controller had agreed with Rock director’s proposal

Answer: A

Name:	Commercial Contracting
Exam Code:	L4M3
Certification:	CIPS Certification
Vendor:	CIPS
Total Questions:	193
Last Updated:	May 15, 2024

CIPS L4M3