University of Brighton
Faculty of Management and Information Sciences
Brighton Business School
Module Report Template
Module Title
Contract Law
Module Code
Courses/ Years Taught
Module Leader
Other members of the teaching team
Semester (or weeks taught if block mode)
Academic Year
LW265
LLB Law with Business – Level 5
Juliet Turner
None
1&2
2011/2012
Introduction
This module (LW265) is for students studying the LLB Law with Business degree. The coursework
marks demonstrate an average grade of 62.8%, which is exactly in line with the last two years. This
year, there was a particularly strong percentage achieving a first class mark – just over 15%
(compared to 13.5% in 2011). The average exam mark was 57%, compared to 53% in 2011 and 59%
in 2010.
The module is delivered in Year 2 of the degree. As in previous years, the topics covered in the
module included the formation of a contract; terms of a contract (including exemption clauses);
vitiating factors; privity of contract and third parties; discharge of a contract and remedies for breach
of contract. The module is delivered by means of a one hour weekly lecture and seminar
The assessment for the module comprised of a piece of coursework (30% of the final mark).
Students were offered a choice of two topic areas to research, depending on which area interested
them the most. The module is also assessed using a three hour unseen examination (70% of the
final mark). The structure of the exam involved students answering four questions out of a total of
eight (four essay questions and four problem questions were set).
Students were provided with four study packs throughout the year with all the written materials for the
module and were given access to lecture slides and further reading on studentcentral.
Statistical data including passes and referrals
Coursework
Average Mark:
Range of Marks:
Distribution of Marks:
70%+
60%-69%
50%-59%
40%-49%
35%-39%
<35%
TOTAL
62.8% (62.8%)
30% - 80% (40% - 85%)
No of Scripts
12 (8)
49 (39)
10 (11)
3 (2)
2 (0)
1 (0)
77 (60)
The assignment task was a choice of two essay questions – one on the topic of intention to create
legal relations and the other on mistake. The question on intention proved to be the most popular.
The average mark for the coursework was exactly the same as the previous two years at 62.8%. Just
over 15% of the cohort achieved a first class mark. There were three fails this year. In the main, the
coursework was extremely well research and the best performing students had undertaken an
interesting critical evaluation of the law. The three fails had not carried out sufficient reading and this
was evidenced in a poorly researched and limited analysis of the law.
Examination
Average Mark:
Range of Marks:
Question No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
57% (53%)
26%-74% (6%-74%)
Number of Attempts
15
50
38
42
55
21
49
9
Average Mark (%)
48
57
60
63
57
47
57
45
Distribution of Marks:
70%+
60%-69%
50%-59%
40%-49%
35%-39%
<35%
TOTAL
No of Scripts
11 (3)
24 (24)
19 (14)
11 (11)
3 (0)
2 (7)
70 (59)
It was pleasing to see that 15% of students achieved a first class mark this year (compared to 5% in
2011 and 13.2% in 2010). During the year, the cohort did come across a particularly strong one,
particularly during seminar time. This academic year 7% of students failed to achieve a pass
(compared to 11.8% in 2011 and 3.8% in 2010). Those students who failed to achieve a pass did not
correctly state the relevant legal rules and had very little in the way of case law.
In the essay questions, the topics of privity and discharge of a contract were covered particularly well.
Those that achieved higher marks in the privity question not only covered the doctrine itself, the
rationale for it, exceptions to the doctrine and the relevant statute, but also evidenced wider reading
and critiqued the introduction of the Act. Those that did well in the discharge of a contract question,
similarly stated the relevant legal principles, used case law and statute, but went on to consider
whether the doctrine had a role to play in the modern law of contract.
With regard to the problem questions, the topics of offer/acceptance and misrepresentation jointly
received the average mark of 57%. Overall, students stated the law comprehensively, using relevant
case law and statute in order to advise the parties.
Students were able to choose any four questions to answer out of the following eight:
Q1.
This essay question on the topic of exemption clauses and terms received a relatively low
average mark of 48%. The majority of students could accurately explain the law on
exemption clauses, with case authority but students tended to do less well on the second part
of the question about terms. Those students who did do particularly well, comprehensively
covered incorporation, construction and legislation, as well as the question on terms.
Students who did less well did not cover the terms aspect well, or left out construction with
regard to exemption clauses.
Q2.
This question asked students to critically assess the doctrines of duress and undue influence.
This was the second most popular question and received an average mark in line with the
overall cohort exam average of 57%. Stronger answers were able to deal equally well with
duress and undue influence. They provided a good critique of the law, focussing on
developments in this area, for example with regards to economic duress and lawful act
duress. Those students who did less well, simply stated some of the key principles/cases,
with very little evaluation of the doctrines.
Q3.
This essay question on privity of contract achieved a relatively high mark of 60%. Better
answers comprehensively explained the doctrine and in particular its rationale, considered the
exceptions to the doctrine with relevant case law, identified why there was a need for reform,
explained how the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 had changed the law, and
then went on to evaluate the impact of the Act drawing upon a variety of journal articles.
Those students who did less well were able to explain the doctrine and some of its
exceptions, but did not discuss the Act in enough depth or failed to evaluate whether the Act
improved the law.
Q4.
This last essay question achieved the highest overall mark at 63%. It asked students to
examine the area of discharge of a contract, and in particular focussed on the doctrine of
frustration. On the whole, most students were very comprehensive in their answers to this
question. They were able to explain the doctrine, identify those situations where the doctrine
applies and does not apply (including relevant case law) and consider the Law Reform
(Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. Those students who did particularly well, were able to
consider whether the doctrine has a role to play in the modern law of contract and make links
to the previous rules in Paradine v Jane, as well as consider force majeure clauses.
Q5.
This problem question on offer and acceptance was the most popular one on the paper and
students achieved an average mark in line with the overall cohort average of 57%. It was a
comprehensive question covering bilateral and unilateral contracts, invitations to treat, offer,
counter offers, acceptance, communication of acceptance and revocation. Stronger answers
tended to pick up on all of these issues and used relevant case law to come to sensible
conclusions. Those students who did less well missed a few of the points, particularly
revocation through a third party.
Q6.
This question on consideration and promissory estoppel was not overly popular and achieved
an average mark of 47%. Many students were able to identify most of the consideration
issues, but did not correctly identify the points about part-payment of debt and covered
promissory estoppel in a surface manner. Better answers dealt with all of the issues, and
covered the topic of promissory estoppel in depth.
Q7.
This question proved to be the third most popular question on the paper. It dealt with the
topic of misrepresentation. Better answers were able to spot all of the misrepresentation
issues with relevant case law, before going on to comprehensively cover the types of
misrepresentation and the remedies available. These answers also considered how
damages are assessed in this area, some of the limitations in terms of remedies and
identified some of the benefits of using the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Q8.
The last question on remedies was the least popular question on the exam paper, with those
attempting it achieving the lowest average mark. Better answers were able to identify the
issues of remoteness, measure of damages, mitigation, damages for mental distress,
liquidated damages clauses and the remedy of specific performance. Those answers that did
less well either missed out one of these areas or only covered it superficially.
Attendance:
On the whole attendance was good and student participation in seminars was excellent this year.
The cohort was a pleasure to work with. Having said that in line with previous years there were a few
students who attendance was poor.
Student Feedback:
Student feedback was gathered at a course level during Student Feedback week. It was pleasing to
see so many positive comments about the module, the teaching methods, the materials and the
delivery.
Module/component organisation
The module materials were changed slightly this academic year in that students were provided with
four study packs throughout the year, rather than one handbook. This was done to break the module
down into its component parts rather than give all the material upfront. I made much more use of
studentcentral this year to give students additional reading, along with lecture slides which students
suggested was useful. Students were given four opportunities for formative feedback during the year
and whilst the first two opportunities were taken up by a number of students, this tended to drop off
later in the year. It may be that four formative feedback opportunities are too much and I will
reconsider this. During the year, I made use of group presentations and some creative exercises,
such as using polleverywhere – these proved successful and student participation during the year
was very good.
In terms of next academic year, I am intending changing the assessment slightly to incorporate an
oral assessment activity in the coursework. This is in order to effectively assess the learning outcome
which states: develop expertise in the oral presentation of legal argument.
External Examiner Comment
To follow
Action Plan
Introduce an oral assessment activity into the coursework assessment.