IRAC method for contract law: worked examples to sharpen your problem answers

Contract law is one of the most IRAC-intensive modules on any LLB because the fact patterns are deliberately messy—multiple parties, overlapping doctrines, and ambiguous facts that could break either way. The students who score well are not those who know more doctrine; they are the ones who can apply the IRAC method to each issue cleanly and quickly, without letting the complexity of the scenario derail structure.

This guide shows how IRAC applies to the most commonly examined contract law issues with worked examples at each stage—so you can replicate the logic on any fact pattern you encounter.

Worked example 1 — Offer and acceptance

The scenario

Aisha sees an advertisement for a laptop at £300 and emails "I accept." The seller replies that the price is now £450.

Issue

The central question is whether the advertisement constitutes an offer capable of acceptance, or an invitation to treat—and if the latter, whether Aisha's email itself constitutes an offer which the seller has rejected.

Rule

Advertisements are ordinarily invitations to treat (Partridge v Crittenden [1968]), not offers. An offer requires a definite promise to be bound on specific terms (Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]). Acceptance must correspond exactly to the offer; a counter-offer terminates the original offer (Hyde v Wrench [1840]).

Application

Applying Partridge, the advertisement is an invitation to treat—no quantity limit, no indication of stock commitment. Aisha's email is therefore an offer to buy at £300. The seller's reply at £450 introduces new terms, making it a counter-offer under Hyde v Wrench, which destroys Aisha's original offer. No contract is formed at either price on these facts.

Conclusion

No binding contract exists. Aisha has no enforceable right to the laptop at £300 or £450.

Worked example 2 — Consideration

The scenario

Ben promises to pay his builder an extra £2,000 to finish on time, after the contract is already signed.

Issue

Whether the promise of extra payment is supported by fresh consideration, or whether the builder's existing contractual duty prevents the variation from being binding.

Rule

Performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration (Stilk v Myrick [1809]). However, where a party provides a practical benefit beyond the strict terms of the original contract, fresh consideration may be found (Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]).

Application

The builder's obligation to complete is already owed under the original contract. Under Stilk, no fresh consideration exists. Applying Williams v Roffey, however, if Ben obtained a practical benefit—avoiding a penalty clause for late completion—that benefit is capable of constituting consideration. The key factual question is whether Ben faced a financial disadvantage from late delivery sufficient to engage Roffey. On the facts given, this is arguable but not certain.

Conclusion

The promise is likely enforceable if Williams v Roffey applies; if the court finds no practical benefit to Ben, the variation fails for want of consideration under Stilk.

What these examples illustrate about IRAC in contract law

• Issue frames the precise legal question—not a summary of the facts or a general topic label.
• Rule is selective: only the cases and principles that the Application will actually use appear here.
• Application runs each element of the test against the specific facts—not a retelling of the scenario.
• Conclusion resolves the Issue with conditionality where the facts genuinely leave room for it.

The contrast between the offer/acceptance example (relatively certain outcome) and the consideration example (genuinely contested) shows how IRAC handles both—and that conditional conclusions are not weakness, they are accuracy. See the first-class essay habits guide for more on visible conditional reasoning.

Using these examples as a template—not a crutch

The value of worked examples is understanding the structure of the move, not memorising the sentences. In your exam, the facts will differ; the IRAC logic will not. Practise replicating this structure on fresh fact patterns under timed conditions—see the PQ practice guide for the routine, and the contract law structuring guide for multi-issue triage in longer scenarios.

Where contract IRAC most often breaks down

The failure mode is almost always Application. Students name the right case in Rule and then write: "In this case there was also a practical benefit." That is narration; it does not test the elements of the rule against the specific facts. The Application deep-dive is the highest-ROI read if that pattern sounds familiar.