Contract law problem questions: how to structure your IRAC answer and stop losing marks

Contract law problem questions are designed to be messy. A single fact pattern might raise offer and acceptance, consideration, misrepresentation, and a limitation clause—all at once, and not in a tidy order. Students who lose marks rarely miss the relevant doctrine. They lose marks because the examiner cannot find the legal reasoning inside the prose—IRAC structure is the tool that makes your analysis legible under exam conditions.

What makes contract PQs particularly demanding is the volume of distinct issues in one scenario. You need to triage quickly, allocate word count proportionately, and—critically—apply the test to the facts rather than just reciting it. Examiners reward candidates who show the move; they penalise those who describe the destination.

The issues to spot first in a contract PQ

A robust issue-spotting pass before writing saves word count. Common heads in a UK LLB contract PQ include:

• Formation: offer, invitation to treat, acceptance (including postal rule, instantaneous comms), consideration (adequacy vs sufficiency, past consideration, promissory estoppel).
• Vitiating factors: misrepresentation (type and remedy), mistake (common, mutual, unilateral), duress, undue influence.
• Terms: express vs implied, UCTA/CRA limitation and exclusion clauses, conditions, warranties, innominate terms.
• Breach and remedies: anticipatory breach, termination for breach, damages (remoteness, mitigation, liquidated vs penalty).

Not every fact pattern triggers all of these—but Issue identification is where your mark starts. The IRAC structure guide explains how to signal issues sharply before committing Rule sentences.

Application in contract questions: where marks are won

Consider the difference between these two sentences about Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co:

• Narrative: "In Carlill there was a valid offer."
• Application: "Applying Carlill, the advertisement here specifies a sum, performance conditions, and manifests an intention to be bound—the stronger counterargument is whether the vagueness of [specific fact] undermines sufficiency of terms."

The second runs the test; the first just names the case. This gap is where most 2:1 bands live, and it is the gap the Application deep-dive is built around.

Structuring a multi-issue contract PQ

• Deal with issues in logical (not chronological) order: formation before terms; terms before breach; breach before remedies.
• Short IRAC blocks for minor issues; longer Application depth for the main contested point.
• Signpost explicitly between issues: "Turning to consideration…" so the examiner never loses your thread.
• One conclusion per head, then a global summary—do not merge them into a vague paragraph at the end.

Why timed practice matters more in contract law

Contract fact patterns are long. Under exam conditions, students who have not rehearsed issue triage run out of time on formation and never reach terms or remedies—losing the marks for those heads entirely. Build the habit with regular timed reps and pair with time-pressure tactics before exams arrive.