FLK1 · SQE1 module
Contract Law
Contract is one of the most heavily tested FLK1 subjects, and one of the most contested online, which makes accuracy the differentiator rather than volume.
Formation questions (offer, acceptance, consideration, intention) are the most common single best answer pattern, followed by terms, misrepresentation and remedies.
What this module covers
- Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations
- Express and implied terms, exclusion clauses
- Misrepresentation, mistake, duress and undue influence
- Discharge, breach and remedies including damages and specific performance
300+ practice questions in this subject.
A real question from this module
Try it before you decide
A retailer advertises that it will pay £50 to any customer who buys its multivitamin, takes it daily for three months as directed, and still catches a cold, adding that £5,000 has been placed in a separate account to meet valid claims. A customer buys the product, follows the instructions for three months, still catches a cold, and claims the £50 without ever contacting the retailer beforehand. Which of the following best describes the customer’s position?
- ANo contract exists, because the advertisement is mere sales puff and was never intended to be taken literally
- BA contract exists, since the fund shows an intention to be bound, and performance is both the acceptance and consideration
- CNo contract exists, because acceptance of any offer must be communicated to the retailer before performance begins
- DNo contract exists, because a customer who merely buys and uses a product in the ordinary way provides no consideration
- EA contract exists, but only once the retailer confirms receipt of the claim and agrees to pay the fifty pounds
Show the answer and why
Answer: B. An advertisement can be a unilateral offer to the world, capable of acceptance by anyone who performs the stipulated act, without any need to communicate acceptance in advance. Evidence of a genuine intention to be bound, such as money set aside to meet claims, displaces the argument that the advertisement was mere sales puff. Performing the stated act, buying and using the product as directed, is itself both the acceptance and the consideration, so no separate confirmation from the retailer is required.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.