SinsNotTragedies
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
I am currently struggling with how best to structure my answers.

When I attempt to answer a question I usually know all of the legal principles I want to discuss and relevant cases. However, I have difficulty translating it all to a written form. I never know the order in which I should discuss everything, it is the application side that I struggle with, I guess. It makes me feel like all of my revision is futile, and I feel so nervous writing out my answers.

Has anyone got any advice on how best to approach a contract law question? Or perhaps a structure I can adopt?
0
reply
jessjanellbhons1
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by SinsNotTragedies)
I am currently struggling with how best to structure my answers.

When I attempt to answer a question I usually know all of the legal principles I want to discuss and relevant cases. However, I have difficulty translating it all to a written form. I never know the order in which I should discuss everything, it is the application side that I struggle with, I guess. It makes me feel like all of my revision is futile, and I feel so nervous writing out my answers.

Has anyone got any advice on how best to approach a contract law question? Or perhaps a structure I can adopt?
I ended up with a first in contracts (77%) and wrote my dissertation in the area of contract law (focusing on the doctrine of mistake).

When you approach a contract law question, the things to consider are, in this order/structure:
1) Is there a valid (agreement, consideration and intention) and enforceable (formalities and capacity) contract between the parties (privity)?
2) What does the contract say? (terms, representations, exclusion clauses)
3) Have there been any breaches of the contract?
4) Were there any vitiating factors? (misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, illegality,unconscionable conduct, frustration)
5) What are the remedies? (damages, specific performance, injunctions, rescission, rectification, termination)

When you answer the questions, first state the issue as a heading. Next, state the general principle and then apply it to the hypothetical facts by analogising and/or distinguishing with key cases. Next, state any counter-rules and/or sub-rules and apply those. Keep going until you can reach a reasoned conclusion. Repeat until you have covered all the issues.

The better you can analogise and/or distinguish with key cases, the higher your mark will be. Therefore, it is essential to know not only the rules from the cases but also the facts of the cases for analogising and/or distinguishing.

All the best!
Jess, LLB Hons 1
3
reply
Mimir
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
When using the IRAC structure above (Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion) don't forget to APPLY the case law. Can't just say "the case of X tells us" and leave it there, use the principle to analyse the scenario then cite the case after the relevant statement.
1
reply
SinsNotTragedies
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by jessjanellbhons1)
I ended up with a first in contracts (77%) and wrote my dissertation in the area of contract law (focusing on the doctrine of mistake).

When you approach a contract law question, the things to consider are, in this order/structure:
1) Is there a valid (agreement, consideration and intention) and enforceable (formalities and capacity) contract between the parties (privity)?
2) What does the contract say? (terms, representations, exclusion clauses)
3) Have there been any breaches of the contract?
4) Were there any vitiating factors? (misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, illegality,unconscionable conduct, frustration)
5) What are the remedies? (damages, specific performance, injunctions, rescission, rectification, termination)

When you answer the questions, first state the issue as a heading. Next, state the general principle and then apply it to the hypothetical facts by analogising and/or distinguishing with key cases. Next, state any counter-rules and/or sub-rules and apply those. Keep going until you can reach a reasoned conclusion. Repeat until you have covered all the issues.

The better you can analogise and/or distinguish with key cases, the higher your mark will be. Therefore, it is essential to know not only the rules from the cases but also the facts of the cases for analogising and/or distinguishing.

All the best!
Jess, LLB Hons 1
(Original post by Mimir)
When using the IRAC structure above (Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion) don't forget to APPLY the case law. Can't just say "the case of X tells us" and leave it there, use the principle to analyse the scenario then cite the case after the relevant statement.

Thank you very much guys, will keep this advice in mind for when I write my next essay.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Bournemouth University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 19 Feb '20
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    Postgraduate and professional courses Postgraduate
    Wed, 19 Feb '20
  • University of Warwick
    Warwick Business School Postgraduate
    Thu, 20 Feb '20

Has your university offer been reduced?

Yes (46)
31.08%
No (76)
51.35%
Don't know (26)
17.57%

Watched Threads

View All