Written by students who passed Immediately available after payment Read online or as PDF Wrong document? Swap it for free 4.6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Summary

Summary Complete PGDL Contract Law Problem Question Structure

Rating
-
Sold
3
Pages
42
Uploaded on
07-05-2025
Written in
2024/2025

This document contains everything that helped me get a distinction in my contract law exams and hopefully you will find it useful too. It’s been formatted to follow the structure of how you would need to answer a PQ question logically. Use the navigation in word to quickly navigate through the document to the topic which you need.

Show more Read less
Institution
Course

Content preview

Contract Problem Question Structure

Notes:
- Formal language
- Define important terms
- Deal with events in chronological order
- Don’t make the distinction between common law and equitable doctrine (promissory estoppel)
- Very structured – follow the structure provided
- Deal with each distinct contract issue separately (logical structure) (Issue, Contract, Breach, Exemption
Clause, Incorporated, Remedies, etc)
- IRAC – state the Introduction identifying the Issue, legal rule (with Authority – case or statutory provision)
apply to the facts and Conclude

Overall Structure:
1. Identify a contract/VARIATION of a contract
a. If there’s no contract there will not be a remedy in contract law
i. Agreement (offer and acceptance)
ii. Consideration
iii. Intention to create legal relations
1. Parties
a. Agency
2. Contract established  terms of the contract
a. Express
b. Implied
i. By the courts
ii. Statute
c. Exemption clauses
i. Common law rules
ii. Statutory controls
3. Remedies for breach of contract  a breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform its obligations
under the contract without lawful excuse

, a. Damages  aim is to compensate the innocent party for loss of bargain
b. Termination
c. Specific Performance/injunction
d. Discharge  The parties relieved from performance i.e. by agreement, performance, breach, and
frustration
e. Restitution
f. Guarantees and indemnities
g. Rescission
4. Doctrine of complete performance
5. Frustration
6. Vitiating Factors
a. Misrepresentation
b. Mistake
c. Duress and undue influence


Agreement and Contractual Intention
Offer and acceptance questions
- Issue – is there a valid contract?
- Rule – a contract requires agreement (offer + acceptance), consideration and intention to create legal
relations
o Offer – a definite promise to be bound by specified terms (Professor Treitel) (offeror)
o Acceptance – the unqualified assent to the terms of the offer which is normally required to have been
communicated to the offeror (R v Clarke) (offeree)
o [identify the parties] – consider capacity if relevant
- Application – apply the facts to each legal requirement
o Offer: Identify if a statement is an offer or an invitation to treat
 Offer caveats:
 Counteroffer
o Will destroy the original offer (Hyde v Wrench)

, o ‘Battle of the forms’ – The last counter-offer accepted without objection will govern
the contract ‘last shot rule’ (Butler Machine Tool v Ev- Cell- O Corp; Brogden v
Metropolitan Railway Co)  [links to incomplete agreements below]
 However up to the court’s discretion (First form won - TRW Ltd v Panasonic
Industry Europe GmbH and another company; neither party’s terms - Lidl UK
Gmbh v Hertford Foods Ltd. & Anor)
 Incomplete agreements – [LINK TO VARIATION OF CONTRACT]
o The court will consider the whole correspondence to assess intent and completeness
(objectively), but the facts have to be judged in context
 Judged objectively  consideration of both vagueness and incompleteness
 Vagueness: A contract addresses key issues but lacks precision
o The courts task is to find a meaning of the words which is both
sufficiently certain to allow the court to work out whether the contract
has been compiled with, but which can fairly be said to reflect the
intentions of the parties
o Incompleteness: A contract omits important matters entirely
 If something ‘key’ or ‘legally essential’ is omitted, then,
contractual intention or not, the agreement can’t be enforced
 The bottom line is that the law will strive to uphold contracts. So
the contract will be enforceable unless the contract is either
unworkable, or too uncertain without the term in question being
added in
 Statutory implications can imply terms into contracts
1. Terms implied by custom if the custom is  notorious,
certain and reasonable, and generally regarded as binding
2. Term implied in fact if  it is necessary to give the contract
business efficacy (The Moorcock)
3. Term implied in law if  it is what the nature of the contract
itself implicitly requires
o If key express terms remain unresolved, no binding offer exists (Hussey v Horne-
Payne)

,  Whether the parties are in the same trade
 Trade usage
 Whether the agreement has been acted on for any length of time
 Whether there is an objective mechanism for resolving any uncertainty such as
an arbitration clause
 Request for information
o Will not destroy the offer but neither will it amount to an acceptance (Stevenson
Jacques and Co v McLean)
 Invitation to treat
o Shop-service and shop window displays  the customer offers to buy the goods
when the customer presents them at the payment point, and acceptance takes place
when the shop takes payment for the goods (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
v Boots Cash Chemists; Fisher v Bell)
o Advertisements (Partridge v Crittenden)  HOWEVER
 An advertisement of a reward  treated as an offer (Williams v Carwardine)
o Auctions
 S 57(2) of the Sale of Goods Act (SGA) 1979
 Auctioneer calls for bids (invitation to treat)
 Bids can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance
 a sale by auction is complete on the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer
(acceptance)
 Auctioneer acts as the agent of the owner in order to form the contract
 S 57(3) – ‘reserve price’
 Without reserve price – unilateral contract (Barry v Davies) – can claim
damages against the auctioneer NOT the owner
 With reserve price – bilateral contract between owner and bidder
o Tenders (Spencer v Harding)  HOWEVER
 Could give rise to a unilateral contract (Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust
Company Ltd; Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council –
implied promise to consider all tenders submitted on time)

Written for

Institution
Study
Unknown
Course

Document information

Uploaded on
May 7, 2025
Number of pages
42
Written in
2024/2025
Type
SUMMARY

Subjects

CA$49.20
Get access to the full document:

Wrong document? Swap it for free Within 14 days of purchase and before downloading, you can choose a different document. You can simply spend the amount again.
Written by students who passed
Immediately available after payment
Read online or as PDF

Get to know the seller
Seller avatar
violetlee1

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
violetlee1 University of Law
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
7
Member since
10 months
Number of followers
1
Documents
4
Last sold
1 month ago

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions