AQA A-Level Law: Law of Contract — Practice Questions

These questions cover section 3.4 Law of contract in AQA A-level Law (7162), the contract option on Paper 3. They test every part of the specification: formation, terms, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, exclusion clauses, misrepresentation, economic duress, discharge, remedies and contract theory. Short items build recall; the applied and extended items practise the advice-and-evaluation answers AQA rewards.

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Law of contract study guide | Law of contract revision notes

---

Section A - multiple choice

1. Which case decided that a display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat? [1] A Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co B Fisher v Bell C Hyde v Wrench D Adams v Lindsell

2. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which section gives the short-term right to reject goods? [1] A s9 B s20 C s49 D s56

3. Which statement about misrepresentation is correct? [1] A An opinion is always a statement of fact B Under s2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 the defendant must prove reasonable grounds for belief C A misrepresentation makes a contract void D Silence is always a misrepresentation

Section B - short answers

4. Explain the rule on part payment of a debt and the effect of promissory estoppel. [5]

5. Explain the difference between conditions, warranties and innominate terms. [5]

6. Explain the meaning of economic duress and the remedy available. [5]

7. Explain when a contract will be discharged by frustration. [5]

Section C - applied questions

8. Elif buys a new washing machine from Brightway Ltd for 500 pounds. After three weeks it floods her kitchen. Brightway says she must accept a repair and points to a notice in the shop: “No refunds in any circumstances.” Advise Elif of her rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. [10]

9. Marcus sells his café to Lin. He tells her it “takes about 2,000 pounds a week”. He honestly believes this because takings were that high two years ago, but he has the recent accounts showing 1,200 pounds a week and has not checked them. Lin buys the café and loses money. Advise Lin. [10]

Section D - extended problem and evaluation

10. Northgate Logistics agrees to transport Harlow Toys’ Christmas stock for 20,000 pounds, delivery by 1 December. Northgate’s standard terms, signed by Harlow, exclude “all liability for late delivery”. On 15 November Northgate demands 30,000 pounds, saying it will not deliver otherwise. Harlow, which has no time to find another carrier, agrees but later refuses to pay the extra 10,000 pounds. The goods arrive on 10 December, and Harlow loses a lucrative contract with a retailer that Northgate knew nothing about.

Advise Harlow, and evaluate whether the law strikes a fair balance between freedom of contract and protection of the weaker party. [30]

Answers

1. B. [1]

2. B (s20, exercised within the 30-day period in s22). [1]

3. B. [1]

4. Payment of a smaller sum on the due date is not consideration for a promise to forgive the rest (Pinnel’s Case, 1602; Foakes v Beer, 1884) [1]. Exceptions: payment early, in a different place or with something extra at the creditor’s request [1]. Promissory estoppel (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House, 1947) prevents a creditor going back on a clear promise the debtor relied on [1], but it is a shield not a sword (Combe v Combe, 1951) [1] and is unavailable if the promise was extracted by pressure (D and C Builders v Rees, 1966) [1].

5. A condition is a vital term; breach allows termination and damages (Poussard v Spiers, 1876) [2]. A warranty is a minor term; breach allows damages only (Bettini v Gye, 1876) [1]. An innominate term is classified by the consequences of the breach: termination if the innocent party is deprived of substantially the whole benefit, otherwise damages (Hong Kong Fir, 1962) [2].

6. Economic duress is illegitimate pressure, usually a threat to break a contract, which is a significant cause of the victim entering or varying a contract, leaving no practical alternative [2] (Atlas Express v Kafco, 1989; DSND Subsea, 2000) [1]. The contract is voidable and the victim may rescind [1], but must act promptly, as affirmation bars rescission (The Atlantic Baron, 1979) [1].

7. Frustration occurs when, after formation and without either party’s fault, an event makes performance impossible (Taylor v Caldwell, 1863), illegal, or radically different from what was agreed (Krell v Henry, 1903) [2]. It does not apply where performance is merely more expensive (Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, 1956), the event was foreseen or provided for, or it was self-induced (Maritime National Fish, 1935) [2]. The contract ends automatically and the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 adjusts payments [1].

8. [10]

• Elif is a consumer and Brightway a trader, so the CRA 2015 applies.
• s9: goods must be of satisfactory quality; a machine that floods after three weeks is not.
• s20 and s22: the short-term right to reject lasts 30 days from delivery; at three weeks Elif is within time and can reject for a full refund.
• She does not have to accept a repair; s23 repair or replacement is an alternative she may choose.
• If she chooses repair and it fails, s24 gives a price reduction or final right to reject.
• The notice: s31 makes a term excluding s9 rights not binding on the consumer.
• She may also claim damages for the flooded kitchen as a natural consequence of the breach (Hadley v Baxendale, 1854).
• Conclusion: Elif can reject and claim a refund plus damages.

9. [10]

• Statement of fact: past and present takings are fact; Marcus has superior knowledge, so it is not a mere opinion (Smith v Land and House Property, 1884).
• False: current takings are 1,200 pounds.
• Inducement: the takings were material to buying a café (Redgrave v Hurd, 1881; contrast Attwood v Small, 1838).
• Type: Marcus honestly believes it, so not fraudulent (Derry v Peek, 1889); but he had the accounts and could not prove reasonable grounds for belief - negligent under s2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 (Howard Marine v Ogden, 1978). Also a failure to correct an out-of-date statement (With v O’Flanagan, 1936).
• Remedies: rescission if not barred by delay or affirmation; damages on the fraud measure (Royscot Trust v Rogerson, 1991).

10. [30] Indicative content:

Extra 10,000 pounds. Northgate was already bound to deliver for 20,000 pounds; performing an existing duty is not consideration (Stilk v Myrick, 1809) unless Harlow obtained a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey, 1991). Even if it did, the threat not to deliver at Christmas is illegitimate pressure leaving no practical alternative - economic duress (Atlas Express v Kafco, 1989, on very similar facts). Harlow protested by refusing to pay, so it has not affirmed. The variation is voidable.

Late delivery and the exclusion clause. Delivery by 1 December is likely a condition or serious innominate term; late delivery is breach. Incorporation: signature binds (L’Estrange v Graucob, 1934). Construction: the clause clearly covers lateness. UCTA 1977 s3 applies because Harlow dealt on Northgate’s standard terms, so the clause is effective only if reasonable; relevant factors include bargaining power and whether Harlow could insure. A total exclusion for a time-critical service may be unreasonable.

Damages. Harlow can recover losses arising naturally from late delivery of Christmas stock. The lost retail contract was not known to Northgate and is too remote (Victoria Laundry, 1949). Harlow must mitigate.

Evaluation. Classical freedom of contract enforces what parties agree; but UCTA, CRA 2015, economic duress and the remoteness rule show the law protecting the weaker party. Duress is still narrow and uncertain (Times Travel, 2021); UCTA’s reasonableness test gives flexibility but less certainty. A reasoned conclusion should follow.

Where marks are usually lost

• Not identifying the type of misrepresentation before stating the remedy.
• Missing the time limits that decide which CRA remedy is available.
• Treating a signed clause as automatically valid without UCTA or CRA analysis.
• Evaluation that is generic rather than tied to cases and statutes.

Frequently asked questions

How should I plan an AQA contract problem? List each legal issue in the order it arises, then for each give the rule, authority, application and a mini-conclusion. Finish with overall advice.

Will I be asked about theory? Yes. The specification lists theory topics such as freedom of contract, the postal rule and the effectiveness of remedies, and these feed into evaluation marks.

Are consumer and business contracts treated differently? Yes. Consumers rely on the CRA 2015; business contracts on UCTA 1977 and the common law, so identify the parties first.

Official specification

AQA A-level Law (7162) specification, section 3.4 Law of contract - aqa.org.uk.