The Student Room Group

AQA A Level Law (options A and B) 7162/3A/3B - 20 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]


How did the exam go for you?

AQA A Level Law (options A and B) 7162/3A/3B - 20 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]

Here is the exam discussion for this exam. Talk anything from how to revise for it, specific questions or time management :ahee:

Date/Time: Monday 20th June PM
Length: 2h

:goodluck: with revision and exams :work:
Hey everyone,

Hope revision (albeit final revision) is going well. Just wondering whether anyone has any idea about what topic the 15 marker will be on considering the advance information highlights, Law and Society (including balancing conflicting interests) and Law and Justice. I am still not sure on this, however, I was thinking that as the 15 marker in paper 1 was on Law and Society (fault), they might ask the 15 mark question on Law and Justice and then include 'balancing conflicting interests' as the 7 mark ELS bolt-on for question 11 in paper 3. Would you say this logic is reasonable?
(edited 1 year ago)
Some Contract notes for those who need it. It is good revision for me too, to see how much I can remember. This is only for the substantive, advanced information topics (Consideration, ITCLR, Frustration, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Remedies)

Consideration is something of value each party offers in exchange; historically, this element was required as part of a contract to create evidence of an ITCLR, however, it still stands as crucial today. It can be money or an act/omission, amongst other things. It need not be 'adequate' but must be 'sufficient' (Thomas v Thomas) in the court's eyes; this essentially means that it must have some genuine inherent value, but whether or not it is a 'good' or 'bad' deal is not the business of the court. This is the fundamental rule of consideration, these are the others:

Past consideration is not valid consideration: Past consideration is not sufficient (Re Mcardle); 'past' refers to it being executed prior to contract formation. For example, if A promises to give B a car and later B promises to give A £100 for this car, this £100 is not enforceable consideration because it was formed after the promise to pay the car (the past consideration). However, there are exceptions to this rule. If it is implied that someone will receive monetary payment for their efforts, this may arise an instance where past consideration is valid ( Lampleigh v Braithwaite, Re Caseys Patent).

Previous contractual obligations cannot form new considerations: As proven in Stilk v Myrick - existing duties cannot provide new consideration. This also applied to obligations under statutory authority (i.e. legal obligations, such as those held by a police officer) as shown in Collins v Godfrey. There is an exception to this rule when the performance of existing duties (e.g. say the same duties but now in a narrower time frame) can be new consideration, really it is up for the court to decide (Williams v Roffrey Bros & Nicholls)

Consideration must move from the promise: Essentially just privity of contract. A third party cannot enforce consideration (Tweedle v Atkinson). There can be exceptions to this under The 'Contracts (Rights of a Third Party) Act 1999 - for example, when a contract confers benefit onto a third party or a contract explicitly states an identified third party by name or description.

The performance of an existing contractual duty for a third party can provide new consideration: Scotsen v Pegg. I think Shanklin Piers v Detel is also relevant here in terms of collateral contracts. Both of these cases are more to do with the privity of contract than consideration so I wouldn't stress too much over them.

(I forgot something - the promise or acceptance of part payment of a pre-existing debt in place of the whole amount is NOT valid consideration, as show in Foakes v Beer.)
(edited 1 year ago)
Intention to Create Legal Relations
This essentially requires that both parties intended for their contractual terms to be legally binding - without this element, a contract can fail even if all other elements of formation are present. It is a way for the courts to differentiate between gratuitous statements (usually in social situations) and genuine contractual obligations. It also saves the courts time - if every social agreement was taken to court, this would clog up the courts.

Business Agreements: There is an assumption that these agreements do maintain an intention to create legal relations (Edwards v Skyways Ltd) but this can be rebutted. For example, if a contract states that it is binding in 'honour only' the assumption may be rebutted (Jones v Vernon Pools).

Social Agreements: There is an assumption that these agreements do not maintain an intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour, Jones v Padervatton) but this can be rebutted. For example, where there is evidence of written agreements, particularly in the course of legal matters i.e. a divorce, this may rebut the presumption (Merritt v Merritt). Likewise, if there is an exchange of money this may rebut the presumption (Simpkin v Pays). If financial security is at risk, it is also likely to be rebutted (Parker v Clarke).
This is a way in which a contract can be discharged (end), meaning that all contractual duties and obligations dissolve. Unlike discharge via breach, damages cannot be awarded to the suffering party for the frustration; this is because there is no 'fault' on either party when frustration occurs. This is because frustration is when an unforeseeable, intervening event prevents either party from fulfilling their contractual obligations. Frustration can occur in three ways.

1) Destruction of the subject matter. This occurs when something essential to the performance of contractual duties is destroyed, and therefore the fulfilling of obligations is impossible. It can be physical, such as the music hall being burnt down in Taylor v Caldwell. I think if someone gets sick through no fault of their own, it also falls into this group (although bear in mind, often partial performance is at play with these scenarios).
2) Subsequent Illegality. This occurs when after contractual formation, a duty within the contract is rendered illegal and thus cannot be performed. Metropolitan Water Board v **** Keer
3) Destruction of The Common Venture. This occurs when the essential purpose of the contract is destroyed, if you read the case of Hearne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton that explains it. Because the claimant could still view the boats (the main purpose for the contract i.e. a condition) the contract was not frustrated even if the king did not arrive. In an exam, you have to use your judgement to determine whether the purpose of the contract has been destroyed

However, there are instances where a contract will not be frustrated even if one of the above points is raised.

1) Self-Induced Frustration. This is self-explanatory - if there is evidence that either party induced frustration, this will render it not available. Ocean Trawlers 1935.
2) The frustrating event was foreseeable. This is the most obvious one I think the exam board will put in. Amalgamated Investment v John Walker
3) The performance of contractual obligations becomes less profitable - this is not frustration and is in place to prevent larger contractual parties from exploiting smaller ones. A party cannot claim a contract as frustrated on these grounds. Davis Contractors v Fareham
Consumer Rights Act 2015
This Act aims to protect traders in trader-consumer agreements; it replaced the Sale of Goods Act. The terms of this Act are implied into every trader-consumer agreement via statutory authority. Remember you can also bring up common law breaches of conditions/warranty when discussing such scenarios as well as terms implied by statute; it isn't a requirement but in a 30 marker it could give you an extra mark or two to just mention.

Terms in relation to Goods

Section 9: 'Satisfactory Quality'
* A consumer is entitled to see the goods as of a 'satisfactory quality'; this is compared to the objective standard of the reasonable man, and what he would assume to be of 'satisfactory quality'. The safety, price, description and characteristics of the goods are taken into account.
*Does not concern any defect brought to the consumers attention before sell
Section 10: 'Fit for Purpose'
* The good must be fit for purpose - if the consumer makes clear their intended purpose to the trader, the goods must be fit for it even if it is not used for its intended purpose.
* Does not apply if the consumer does not rely on the trader's word.
Section 11: 'Match Description'
* Goods must match their description
Section 20: 'Short Term Right to Reject'
*The consumer has a right to reject the product in 30 days
Section 23: 'Right to Repair or Replacement'
* Trader must do so in a reasonable time, and consumer must request so in a reasonable amount of time
* Consumer can not insist if not possible
Section 24: 'Final Right to Reject or Price Reduction'
* This right becomes available if the consumer has one replacement/repair and it does not meet the standards required.
* Refund is also available

Terms in relation to services

Section 49: 'Care and Skill'
* The consumer can expect the service to be done with reasonable care and skill.
Section 52: 'Within a reasonable time frame'
*If a time frame is not stipulated within the contract, a contractual term is implied that it must be done in a 'reasonable' time frame.
Section 55: 'The right to repeat performance'
* Remember, this may not be possible in some cases. If done, the trader must bear any costs incurred.
Section 56: 'The right to a price reduction'
*This can be a full price reduction is appropriate. The right to a price reduction can only be done if S55 is not available (where it be impossible, or the trader cannot do it within a reasonable time frame)

Exclusion Clauses and the CRA 2015. (Exclusion clauses are not in the advance info, but here this is anyway)

Section 31: Traders cannot rely on an exclusion clause which excludes liability for S9/10/11 of the CRA 2015
Section 57: Traders cannot rely on an exclusion clause which excludes liability for s49 of the CRA 2015
Section 65: Traders cannot rely on an exclusion clause which excludes liability for death of personal injury that stems from negligence
Going to be honest, this is quite a short topic which I think people overcomplicate. It is very common sense, so if you forget cases don't worry too much.

When there is a breach of a contractual condition, the suffering party is entitled to repudiate the contract and seek damages. (Poussard v Spiers & Pond)
When there is a breach of a contractual warranty, the suffering party is only entitled to damages (Bettini v Gye).
When there is an anticipatory breach, the suffering party can seek damages immediately, or they can wait until there is an actual breach where market factors may render damages higher (Hochester v De La Tour)

Under the common law, a suffering part is entitled to damages, but equitable remedies are at the discretion of the court.

Liquidated Damages - These are fixed amounts of damages that are present in the contract at formation. If the judge perceives the amount of be a penalty rather than compensatory, the courts will not enforce it.
Unliquidated Damages - Damages that are not fixed in the contract. The courts must therefore determine and issue them. For the damage suffered by the party, a judge will apply causation and remoteness tests to determine the fault of the party in breach (Hadley v Baxendale). Ultimately, the court is looking to put the party in the position had there not been a breach

Mitigation of Loss - The suffering party is under a duty to mitigate their losses, and should certainly not seek to exploit the breach in order to gain higher damages. Pilkington v Wood

Equitable Remedies - This includes specific performance (an order of the court for a party to fulfil their contractual duties) which is a rare order. This is because the court does not wish to impose on the freedoms of others outside of criminal matters. If it will create a hardship on a party, it will definitely be avoided. Dyster v Randall & Son. The other option is Recission, where a contract is completely set aside, returning the parties to their original posistion.
Original post by XJTheGreat
Hey everyone,

Hope revision (albeit final revision) is going well. Just wondering whether anyone has any idea about what topic the 15 marker will be on considering the advance information highlights, Law and Society (including balancing conflicting interests) and Law and Justice. I am still not sure on this, however, I was thinking that as the 15 marker in paper 1 was on Law and Society (fault), they might ask the 15 mark question on Law and Justice and then include 'balancing conflicting interests' as the 7 mark ELS bolt-on for question 11 in paper 3. Would you say this logic is reasonable?

Yea I find it weird too. For both contract and HR, it is the same too, so I wonder if they just wanted to have an easy way to have the same non-substantive questions on each.

For 'Nature of law: different sources of law' is that literally just statutory sources, common law sources and custom? That would be a nice and easy 5 marker. In relation to contract you could talk about Consumer Rights Act for statutory sources, the development of common law in terms of conditions/warranty/innominate terms, and how terms can be implied by custom such as farming (Hutton v Warren). I think you probably won't even have to do it in relation to contract though, you could do it across the whole spec.
(edited 1 year ago)
Exclusion Clauses (Tis NOT on the advanced information so I will make brief notes here. Remember you can get decent marks not knowing the cases, but knowing the principles well).

An exclusion clause within a contract seeks to exclude liability. These are some general rules:

1) Generally if an agreement is signed the party will usually be bound to it (Including exclusion clauses). L'Estrange v Graucob.
2) However, exclusion clauses DO need to be brought to the attention of the party entering into the contract. There is a quote by Lord Denning which describes how some clauses would require a 'hand-printed in red ink' next to it. Olley v Marlborough Court
3) Exclusion clauses can be incorporated via previous dealings. (Hollier v Rambler Motors)
4) Third parties can enforce any term to limit or exclude liability under the Contracts (Rights of third parties) Act 1999
5) Contra Preferentum rule: Where there is doubt or ambiguity surrounding an exclusion clause, the meaning is interpreted (constructed) against the person who seeks to rely on it

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
s2(1) A party cannot rely on an exclusion clause for death or PI via negligence
s2(2) A person cannot restrict their liability for loss or damage unless the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

The act does not define 'reasonableness' but it basically asks if it were to be something in the contemplation of both parties when the contract was formed. s11(1).
(edited 1 year ago)
Vitiating Factors (Again brief because not in advance info)

This occurs when an untrue factual statement induces someone into entering a contract. When later addressed, this is a vitiating factor (it renders the contract null and void). It cannot be a statement of opinion or a trade 'puff'. It must be presented as a factual statement and it must be a significant reason ('induces') the party into the contract.
Spice Girls v Aprilla is the leading case. There are different types of misrepresentation to reflect the level of fault.

Fraudulent - This is when a party KNOWS the statement to be untrue, or reckless as to whether tit was true or not. Derry v Peek. If this is found, the suffering party can sue on the tort of deceit if they wish. They can also claim for all damages stemming from the fraudulent inducement. A loss of profit can be claimed. The suffering party can still affirm or disaffirm the contract.

Negligent - This will only arise when there is a 'special relationship' and can only be actioned when the loss is financial. it is very similar to tort PEL. Hedley Byrne and Co v Heller. Damages are available in the common law and under statutory authority. Contributory negligence and reduce damages

Innocent - Self-explanatory. The party did not know they were making a false statement and is therefore not at fault. There is no immediate right to damages, but there is a discretionary right to damages and recission.

Economic Duress
This occurs when a party makes financial threats to another in order to force the other party to form or change an agreement. Lord Kerr described it as when a party is 'deprived of their free consent and agreement'. It can be difficult to draw a distinction between ED and high pressure business negotiations. These are some base rules:

1) Did the party protest, was their an alternative root available and did they take steps to avoid it? The Universal Sentinel 1983
2 Was it a threat to a small firm by a larger firm?

If found, this makes a contract voidable. The injured party can set the contract aside unless they have expressly or implicitly asserted it. They must seek recession as soon as possible. ED is similar to the tort of intimidation, so damages would lie in tort.
A term is a legally binding statement; representations are statements made prior to contract formation and are not legally binding in an of themselves. The case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping (1962) described how the following factors - 1)Importance 2)Reliance 3)Time between statement and contract formation and 4) Where it was written - determine whether something is a misrepresentation of a term.

Express terms are those which are explicit within the contract. These include conditions which according to Poussard v Spiers & Pond, 'Go to the root of contract'; if they are breached, the purpose fo the contract is devoid and the suffering party is entitled to both recession and damages. A warranty, as defined in Bettini v Gye, does not go to the root and is simply an accessory; if breached, the suffering party is entitled only to damages and the contract cannot be void. An nominate term is neither a clear condition or a clear warranty, so it is decided by on the courts in reference to the 'injury' the breach of it causes.

Implied terms are not explicit in the contract. These can be implied by statute (see CRA above) or by fact i.e. during a dispute the unexpressed intentions of each party are revealed. Terms can also be implied via prior dealings. They can also be implied by custom e.g. Hutton v Warren demonstrates custom implied by farming.

Terms implied via business efficiency are demonstrated by the bystander test:
1) Does the term contribute to business efficiency
2) If both parties were aware of the terms at the moment of contract formation, would it be reasonable to assume that both would agree with them?

(2) is more a test of whether the RM would agree with them. The case here is M&S V BNP
Other methods of discharge (not Frustration)

A contract can be discharged via performance. Usually, this must be complete and exact, as demonstrated in Cutter v Powell. However, part-performance will entail the performing party to receive the appropriate payment relative to their performance. Darken v Lee. Typically, both parties must accept part-performance in advance. If one party has prevented performance by another, the general rules with not apply.
Time is not essential to all contracts but if it is a warranty, performance outside of the stipulated time may result in damages. If it is a condition, this may allow for repudiation if both parties are aware and have mad it clear it is an essential element of the contract, and the subject matter dictates it as such (i.e. perishable food).

A contract can also be discharged via agreement for it to end. Williams v Roffrey Bros.

A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to meet their contractual obligations. Rules of breach of conditions/warranty apply here. With an anticipatory breach, the suffering party can sue immediately or wait until after the breach when recession may be possible or market factors allow for high damages. Hochester v De La Tour.
How did the exam go?
Original post by Mythical Pingu
How did the exam go?

I think it went quite well. This is what I did:

For the first 30 markers, in relation to the claimant buying the shirt, I talked about the CRA 2015 in terms of goods and remedies. I also talked about exclusion clauses in the CRA, as well as relating it to a common law breach of conditions + the common law rules surrounding exclusion clauses. I do hope that is on the right track. The part of the 30 marker about Ola and Raheem, I don't know if anyone else found this, but I thought it was weirdly worded. Was it meant to be unclear if Raheem accepted it or not before he went about looking for the watch seller? I talked about Dickinson v Dodds (revocation) and lapse of time rules regarding offers, and then (to be safe) assumed there was a contract and talked about the breach of terms and remedies. That part was the trickiest for me.

Second 30 marker I talked about the CRA again in terms of services, part performance, breach of common law terms but I also talked about the collateral contracts - I really couldn't think why else it would mention 'the delivery list was incorrect'. Was the list provided by the publisher? If so I assumed that this would mean that a third party prevented performance. Honestly, I don't know, but I know we are not negatively marked so I thought to squeeze it anyway. I haven't had an actual teacher in 6 months so this is a bit of guesswork. The rest of the 30 marker was good though, I talked about frustration, subsequent illegality and foreseeability issues. The Justice bit I rambled but I think I hit most of the A0s. Rest of the paper was good.

How did everyone find it?
Reply 14
The HR paper was pretty ok. They've actually followed the advance info which is a relief.

Quick Reply