Contract Law is typically the first substantive law module students encounter, and it is where many develop habits — good and bad — that persist throughout their degree. After marking thousands of Contract Law essays through LexIQ, here are the most common mistakes and how to fix them.
Mistake 1: Treating Consideration as Simple
Students often present consideration as a straightforward requirement: "There must be something of value." In reality, consideration is one of the most contested and evolving areas of contract law.
The fix: Acknowledge the complexity. Discuss the tension between the orthodox position (consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate) and the modern erosion of this requirement through cases like Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] and MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising [2018].
Show awareness that the doctrine is under pressure: "The 'practical benefit' test in Roffey effectively allows courts to find consideration wherever they wish to enforce a promise — leading Chen-Wishart to question whether the doctrine retains any meaningful gatekeeping function."
Mistake 2: Misunderstanding Williams v Roffey Bros
This is the single most misapplied case in student essays. Students often cite it as authority for the proposition that "practical benefit is always sufficient consideration." This is an oversimplification.
The fix: Roffey applies specifically to situations involving variation of an existing contract where the promisor obtains a practical benefit. It does not override the rule in Stilk v Myrick [1809] for cases involving duress, and its scope was significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court in MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising [2018].
Mistake 3: Offer vs Invitation to Treat as a Binary
Students present this distinction as if it were always clear-cut. It is not. The classification depends on context, and the same communication can be characterised differently depending on the circumstances.
The fix: Discuss the contextual nature of the distinction. Compare Gibson v Manchester CC [1979] (Lord Diplock's literal approach) with Storer v Manchester CC [1974] (Lord Denning's purposive approach). Acknowledge that the distinction can be artificial and that some academics (e.g., Howarth) have argued for its abolition.
Mistake 4: Ignoring Promissory Estoppel's Limitations
Students often present promissory estoppel as a general remedy for broken promises. It is not — it is subject to significant limitations that are frequently overlooked.
The fix: Always address:
- It operates as a shield, not a sword (Combe v Combe [1951])
- It requires reliance and inequity
- It may only suspend, not extinguish, rights (Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric [1955])
- The Australian position (Waltons Stores v Maher) differs significantly
Mistake 5: Weak Problem Question Technique
In problem questions, students often identify the issues but fail to apply the law to the specific facts. They write: "The rule is X. Therefore, the answer is Y." The application step is missing.
The fix: For every issue, explicitly connect the legal rule to the facts:
- "The email states 'I will sell you my car for £5,000' — this language of commitment, specifying the subject matter and price, satisfies the test for definiteness in Carlill..."
- "However, the subsequent phrase 'if I decide to sell' introduces conditionality, echoing the language in Gibson which was held insufficient..."
Getting Feedback on Your Contract Law Essays
The fastest way to improve is to write practice essays and get specific feedback on your application of these principles. LexIQ's essay marker identifies exactly where your Contract Law analysis falls short — whether you are being descriptive rather than analytical, missing key authorities, or misapplying cases.
Test your Contract Law writing now. Paste a paragraph into the free Instant Essay Diagnosis and see how your analysis measures up. Or upload your full essay for complete feedback from £8.99.