Contract Law Revision for LLB UK Students
Cases, exam pitfalls and OSCOLA-ready notes for the UK undergraduate contract law syllabus.
Where Contract Law sits in the LLB
Contract Law is the module that teaches you how the law turns promises into enforceable obligations. It is also the module that most clearly rewards a disciplined IRAC structure: nearly every problem question is built around the four classical pillars of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention, with sub-issues drawn from misrepresentation, mistake, duress, frustration and breach.
UK courses anchor the syllabus around a familiar set of authorities, Carlill, Hyde v Wrench, Adams v Lindsell, Currie v Misa, Hadley v Baxendale, Hong Kong Fir, Photo Production, and weave in statutory overlays from the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. You are expected to know not just the rule, but the policy reason behind it (why does the postal rule exist? what is consideration trying to filter out?).
Use this page to map the territory, then take the cases into the assistant for active retrieval. The best contract scripts at LLB level are written by students who can re-explain each rule in their own words and apply it to ambiguous facts, not by students who can simply recite citations.
Key cases you must be able to apply
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
Unilateral offer to the world; performance constitutes acceptance without notification.
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
A counter-offer destroys the original offer.
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
The postal rule, acceptance takes effect on posting.
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
Classical definition of consideration as a benefit or detriment.
Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] 1 QB 1
Practical benefit can amount to good consideration for a variation.
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Rebuttable presumption against legal intent in domestic agreements.
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
Remoteness of damage, natural consequence + reasonable contemplation limbs.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 QB 26
Innominate terms, remedy depends on the seriousness of the breach.
Exam pitfalls to avoid
- Confusing invitations to treat with offers. Display in a shop window is an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell); price-marked goods on a shelf are the same (PSGB v Boots).
- Forgetting consideration must move from the promisee, but need not move to the promisor.
- Asserting frustration where the contract has simply become more expensive, Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC sets a high bar.
- Drafting a remedy section without distinguishing expectation, reliance, and restitution measures.
- Misapplying the Consumer Rights Act 2015 outside business-to-consumer contexts.
How ThinkLikeLaw helps with Contract Law
- Use the assistant's IRAC mode to draft an answer to any contract problem question with the rule, application and conclusion clearly separated.
- Generate flashcards keyed to consideration, frustration, and the postal rule so the small distinctions stick.
- Run a sample essay through the assistant for a sanity check on whether you have applied the right doctrine in the right order.