Legal Problem Question Assessment Guide
Assessment Overview
The final assessment consists of an extended legal problem question worth 80% of the
module grade. This assessment is pass compulsory, requiring a minimum mark of 42 to pass
the module overall.
Key Details
Word limit: 2,200 words (including footnotes, excluding bibliography)
10% allowance: Maximum 2,420 words
Submission deadline: Wednesday, 15 January 2025, at 2:00 PM
Submission platform: Turnitin via Moodle
Required documents: Assessment cover sheet with accurate word count and
Declaration of Academic Integrity
Submission format: Word document (PDFs are not accepted)
Penalty for plagiarism: Strictly enforced; the use of AI text generators is prohibited
Topics Covered
Contract Law
Formation of contracts:
o Offer (bilateral and unilateral) and acceptance
o Offer versus invitation to treat
o Communication methods
o Rejection and revocation
Consideration:
o Traditional consideration (legal benefit)
o Practical benefit consideration (e.g., Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls)
o Existing legal duty
o Part payment of debts (Foakes v Beer, Pinnel’s Case)
o Past consideration and acting on a request
o Promissory estoppel (Central London Property Trust v High Trees)
Contractual modifications:
o Fresh consideration requirements
o Economic duress (Re Selectmove, Collier v Wright)
Intention to create legal relations
Tort Law
Intentional torts:
o Assault (Collins v Wilcock)
o Battery (Lane v Holloway)
o False imprisonment
Defences:
o Consent
o Necessity
o Self-defence
o Lawful authority
Specialised torts:
o Protection from Harassment Act 1997
o Wilkinson v Downton tort (Wilkinson v Downton)
o Privacy and misuse of private information
IRAC Technique for Problem Solving
The recommended approach follows the IRAC method:
Issue: Identify the legal issues from the scenario
Rule: State the relevant legal principles, case law, and legislation
Application: Apply the rules to the scenario facts
Conclusion: State the likely outcome for each issue
Tips for Using IRAC
Avoid using IRAC as subheadings. Instead, use the names of the parties (e.g.,
Claimant v Defendant) and make it clear who is suing whom, for what, and why.
For multiple claims under different legal principles, create subheadings for each tort
or contract claim.
Address “issues within issues” where applicable (e.g., analysing a defence like
consent within a battery claim).
Marking Criteria
Issue identification: Accurately identifying core and marginal issues
Analysis: Applying relevant legal principles, case law, and legislation effectively
Structure: Logical and coherent argumentation
Presentation:
o Clear formatting (12pt font, 1.5 line spacing, appropriate margins)
o Avoid dense blocks of text to provide “thinking space”
Referencing:
o Proper use of OSCOLA for all sources
o Clear citations for cases, statutes, and secondary materials
Referencing Guidelines
Use OSCOLA referencing style.
Provide full citations in footnotes and group sources alphabetically in the
bibliography.
When referencing statutes, specify the section (e.g., Protection from Harassment Act
1997, s 7(2)).
Avoid non-authoritative sources (e.g., Wikipedia, LawTeacher.net).
Include only the relevant statutory sections and avoid summarising the entire statute.
Examples of IRAC Application
Tort Example
Scenario: At a crowded concert, Chloe grabs Amy’s arm to steady herself, leaving a small
bruise. Amy retaliates by stamping on Chloe’s foot, and Lila threatens Chloe.
Amy v Chloe:
o Issue: Battery (the grab on the arm).
o Rule: Unlawful force must exceed what is generally acceptable in daily life
(Collins v Wilcock).
o Application: Chloe’s grab is unlikely to meet the threshold for battery due to
the concert context.
o Conclusion: Chloe’s action does not constitute battery.
Chloe v Amy:
o Issue: Battery (the stamp on the foot).
o Rule: Proportionality in self-defence (Lane v Holloway).
o Application: Amy’s response is excessive given Chloe’s grab was non-
threatening.
o Conclusion: Chloe likely has a valid battery claim.
Contract Example
Scenario: Eugenie offers part-payment to Paul for a conservatory. Paul accepts but later
questions the agreement.
Paul v Eugenie:
o Issue: Consideration for part-payment of debt.
o Rule: Part-payment is insufficient unless something extra is provided
(Pinnel’s Case, Foakes v Beer).
o Application: Eugenie provides no additional benefit beyond partial payment.
o Conclusion: Paul can claim the full amount.
Issue: Promissory estoppel to enforce Paul’s agreement.
o Rule: Requires reliance and inequity in revoking the promise (High Trees,
Collier v Wright).
o Application: Eugenie’s reliance is unclear, allowing Paul to revoke his
promise.
o Conclusion: Promissory estoppel may not succeed without clear reliance.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Failing to adhere to the IRAC framework consistently.
Including topics not covered in the module (e.g., negligence, defamation).
Misusing criminal law terminology (e.g., “guilty,” “prosecuted”).
Repeating scenario facts or legal principles unnecessarily.
Omitting detailed application of legal rules to facts.
Writing generalised introductions or conclusions.
Using contractions in academic writing.
FAQs
Do I need to explain legal principles repeatedly?
o No, once explained, focus on applying them in subsequent instances.
How much detail is required for case law?
o Provide enough detail to show relevance without restating full case facts.
Should I include a general introduction and conclusion?
o No, save words for detailed analysis.
Presentation Requirements
Font size: 12pt
Spacing: 1.5 line spacing
Structure: Clear headings and subheadings
