Cambridge A-Level Law: Law of Contract — Revision Notes (9084)

The law of contract decides when an agreement is legally binding, what each side has promised, how the obligations end and what a court will order when one side breaks them. Cambridge International A Level Law (9084) tests it on Paper 3 (1 hour 30 minutes, 75 marks): one 25-mark scenario from a choice of two in Section A, and two 25-mark essays from three in Section B. Every answer needs a rule, an authority, application and evaluation.

These notes condense the four syllabus strands, 3.1 to 3.4, of the 2026-2028 syllabus. For the full explanation see the Law of contract study guide; to test yourself use the Law of contract practice questions.

Syllabus coverage

Syllabus ref	Content	Covered below
3.1.1-3.1.5	Nature of a contract; offer and acceptance; intention; consideration; capacity (minors only)	Formation
3.2.1-3.2.4	Express terms; CRA 2015 implied terms; status of terms; control of exemption clauses	Contents
3.3.1-3.3.3	Performance; breach; frustration	Discharge
3.4.1-3.4.2	Damages at common law; equitable remedies	Remedies

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
Bilateral contract	Promise exchanged for promise (most sales)
Unilateral contract	Promise in return for an act; accepted by performing it (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893)
Collateral contract	A separate side-contract whose consideration is entering the main contract
Invitation to treat	An invitation to make offers, not an offer (Pharmaceutical Society v Boots, 1953)
Consideration	Something of value given in return for a promise (Currie v Misa, 1875)
Condition	A term going to the root of the contract; breach allows termination plus damages
Warranty	A minor term; breach gives damages only
Innominate term	Remedy depends on the seriousness of the breach’s effect (Hong Kong Fir, 1962)
Frustration	A supervening event, without fault, makes performance impossible, illegal or pointless

How is a valid contract formed? (3.1)

Offer and acceptance (3.1.2)

• Offer vs invitation to treat: adverts (Partridge v Crittenden, 1968), displays (Boots, 1953), price information (Harvey v Facey, 1893).
• Counter-offer destroys the offer (Hyde v Wrench, 1840); a request for information does not (Stevenson, Jaques v McLean, 1880).
• Termination: revocation communicated before acceptance, even via a reliable third party (Dickinson v Dodds, 1876); lapse after a reasonable time (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore, 1866); rejection.
• Acceptance must be communicated; silence is not acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley, 1862). Postal rule: effective on posting (Adams v Lindsell, 1818); instantaneous methods on receipt (Entores, 1955).
• Standard form contracts and the “battle of the forms”: the last form fired before acceptance by conduct usually wins (Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O, 1979).
• Auctions: the bid is the offer, the fall of the hammer the acceptance (British Car Auctions v Wright, 1972); an auctioneer who advertises “without reserve” must sell to the highest bidder (Barry v Davies, 2000).
• Tenders: an invitation to tender is normally an invitation to treat (Spencer v Harding, 1870); a promise to accept the highest bid is binding, and a “referential bid” is invalid (Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada, 1986).

Intention (3.1.3) - Social/domestic: presumed no intention (Balfour v Balfour, 1919), rebutted on separation (Merritt v Merritt, 1970). Commercial: presumed intention (Edwards v Skyways, 1964), rebutted by an “honour clause” (Rose and Frank v Crompton, 1925).

Consideration (3.1.4)

• Must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas, 1842; Chappell v Nestle, 1960).
• Past consideration is no consideration (Re McArdle, 1951), unless requested and payment implied (Lampleigh v Brathwait, 1615).
• Existing public duty is not consideration (Collins v Godefroy, 1831) unless exceeded (Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC, 1925). Existing contractual duty: Stilk v Myrick (1809) vs Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) and practical benefit in Williams v Roffey (1991).
• Part payment of a debt: Pinnel’s Case (1602), Foakes v Beer (1884); equitable relief through promissory estoppel (High Trees, 1947), but not where the promise was extracted by pressure (D and C Builders v Rees, 1966).

Capacity: minors only (3.1.5)

• Reason: protect minors from exploitation while letting them buy what they need.
• Necessaries: bound to pay a reasonable price (Sale of Goods Act 1979, s3); goods must be suitable to the minor’s condition in life and actual needs (Nash v Inman, 1908).
• Beneficial contracts of service: binding if on the whole for the minor’s benefit (Doyle v White City Stadium, 1935; Roberts v Gray, 1913), not if oppressive (De Francesco v Barnum, 1890).
• Voidable contracts with continuing obligations (e.g. leases, shares): binding unless repudiated during minority or shortly after; money paid is recoverable only on total failure of consideration (Steinberg v Scala, 1923).
• Remedies against minors: equity will not order repayment of money (Leslie v Sheill, 1914); Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 s2 makes an adult guarantor liable; s3 lets the court order return of property acquired under the contract where just and equitable.

What are the terms of a contract? (3.2)

• Terms vs representations (3.2.1): importance (Bannerman v White, 1861; Couchman v Hill, 1947), special knowledge (Oscar Chess v Williams, 1957; Dick Bentley, 1965), timing (Routledge v McKay, 1954).
• Signature binds whether or not read (L’Estrange v Graucob, 1934). Parol evidence rule: oral evidence cannot add to or vary a written document intended as the whole agreement.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 implied terms (3.2.2)

Goods	Services
s9 satisfactory quality; s10 fit for a particular purpose; s11 as described	s49 reasonable care and skill; s52 within a reasonable time
Remedies: s20 right to reject; s22 short-term right to reject within 30 days; s23 repair or replacement; s24 price reduction or final right to reject	Remedies: s55 repeat performance; s56 price reduction

• Status of terms (3.2.3): Poussard v Spiers (1876, condition) vs Bettini v Gye (1876, warranty); innominate: Hong Kong Fir (1962).
• Exemption clauses (3.2.4)
  • Incorporation: signature; notice before or at the time of contracting (Olley v Marlborough Court, 1949; Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, 1971); document must look contractual (Chapelton v Barry UDC, 1940); onerous terms need special notice (Interfoto v Stiletto, 1989).
  • Contra proferentem: ambiguity read against the party relying on the clause (Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance, 1954).
  • UCTA 1977 (business to business): s1(3) business liability; s2(1) no exclusion for death or personal injury from negligence; s2(2) other loss subject to reasonableness; s3 standard terms; s11 reasonableness test (George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds, 1983).
  • CRA 2015 (trader and consumer, s61; definitions s2): s31 goods and s57 services rights cannot be excluded; s62 unfair terms not binding on the consumer; s65 no exclusion for negligent death or personal injury; s68 written terms must be transparent.

How does a contract end? (3.3)

• Performance: entire performance rule (Cutter v Powell, 1795). Exceptions: substantial performance (Hoenig v Isaacs, 1952, contrast Bolton v Mahadeva, 1972); voluntary acceptance of partial performance (a genuine choice is needed: Sumpter v Hedges, 1898); divisible contracts; prevention (Planché v Colburn, 1831); tender of performance (Startup v Macdonald, 1843); time of performance; vicarious performance where personal skill is not required (British Waggon Co v Lea, 1880).
• Breach: actual or anticipatory (Hochster v De la Tour, 1853). If the innocent party waits, it risks the contract being frustrated in the meantime (Avery v Bowden, 1856).
• Frustration
  • Impossibility: destruction (Taylor v Caldwell, 1863), personal incapacity (Condor v Baron Knights, 1966). Supervening illegality: Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr (1918). Purpose pointless: Krell v Henry (1903), contrast Herne Bay v Hutton (1903).
  • Limits: contractual provision covering the event; mere expense or inconvenience (Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC, 1956; Tsakiroglou, 1962); foreseen event (Walton Harvey v Walker and Homfrays, 1931); self-induced (Maritime National Fish, 1935).
  • Common law effect: contract ends automatically from the frustrating event; the old rule that loss lies where it falls (Chandler v Webster, 1904) was softened for total failure of consideration in Fibrosa (1943).
  • Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943: s1(2) money paid is recoverable and money payable ceases to be payable, but the court may allow the payee to keep or recover expenses (Gamerco v ICM/Fair Warning, 1995); s1(3) a just sum for a valuable benefit conferred (BP Exploration v Hunt (No 2), 1979).

What remedies are available for breach? (3.4)

Remedy	Key rule	Authority
Expectation damages	Position as if the contract were performed	Robinson v Harman (1848); Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth (1995)
Reliance damages	Wasted expenditure	Anglia TV v Reed (1972)
Non-pecuniary loss	Disappointment where enjoyment is the purpose	Jarvis v Swans Tours (1973); Farley v Skinner (2001)
Remoteness	Natural losses or those within contemplation	Hadley v Baxendale (1854); Victoria Laundry (1949); The Heron II (1969)
Mitigation	Claimant must take reasonable steps	British Westinghouse (1912); Payzu v Saunders (1919)
Specific performance	Discretionary; damages must be inadequate; not for personal services or ongoing supervision	Beswick v Beswick (1968); Co-op Insurance v Argyll Stores (1997)
Injunction	Restrains breach of a negative stipulation; not if it indirectly compels service	Warner Bros v Nelson (1937); Page One Records v Britton (1968)
Rescission	Sets the contract aside; barred by affirmation, delay, third-party rights or impossibility of restoring the parties	Leaf v International Galleries (1950); Long v Lloyd (1958)

Specific restitution (return of a particular item) is likewise discretionary. All equitable remedies are subject to the maxims, for example “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”.

Worked example: remoteness and mitigation

A bakery buys an oven for delivery on 1 March. It tells the seller it has a new supermarket contract starting that day. Delivery is three weeks late. The bakery loses 4,200 pounds of normal profit and a 9,000 pound bonus it never mentioned. It hires a replacement oven for 600 pounds in week two.

1. Normal lost profit arises naturally (Hadley, first limb): recoverable, 4,200 pounds.
2. The undisclosed bonus was outside the parties’ contemplation (Victoria Laundry): not recoverable.
3. Hiring the oven was reasonable mitigation, so its cost of 600 pounds is recoverable, but profit lost after the hire began is reduced by the profit the hire allowed.

Common mistakes and exam traps

• Calling an advert an offer without discussing Carlill as the unilateral exception.
• Writing “consideration must be adequate” - it must be sufficient.
• Applying UCTA to a consumer contract: after 2015, consumer exclusions are under CRA 2015.
• Treating extra cost as frustration (Davis Contractors).
• Forgetting the s22 30-day short-term right to reject when advising a consumer.
• Listing cases without applying them, and giving no conclusion on liability.

Frequently asked questions

What does Cambridge 9084 Paper 3 test? Paper 3 Law of Contract tests Topic 3 only, with English legal system assumed. You answer one scenario (25 marks) and two essays (25 marks each) in 1 hour 30 minutes.

Do I need to know the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987? Yes. The 9084 syllabus names s2 (guarantees) and s3 (restitution of property) under capacity, together with equitable remedies and their limits.

Is UCTA 1977 still examined? Yes, for business-to-business contracts: s1(3), s2, s3 and s11. Consumer contracts fall under CRA 2015, including s62, s65 and s68.

What is the difference between s1(2) and s1(3) of the 1943 Act? Section 1(2) deals with money paid or payable before frustration. Section 1(3) lets the court award a just sum for a non-money benefit.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) syllabus for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028 - official syllabus PDF, Topic 3 Law of contract.