I'm having difficulties organizing my K exam answer, particularly my analysis for K formation. I find that my response is really disorganized when I'm talking about offer/acceptance/consideration. I'll start talking about how the offer might not really be an offer, and then start talking about how this might be a gift, because it's lacking consideration, etc. It becomes this big, weaving paragraph. I would like to be able to talk about one issue per paragraph, but can't seem to find a balance. This is not a problem for my other classes.

How do you guys organize your answer for offer/acceptance/consideration?

You don't have to worry about consideration unless there is both an offer and an acceptance; I'd therefore do it sequentially (find the offer, the acceptance, then analyze consideration [moral obligation, illusory, etc]).

i personally liked going consideration -> offer/acceptance

to each his own?

1) Buy this book immediately, rush delivery. The Eight Secrets of Top Exam Performance in Law School, by Professor Charles E. Whitebread.

I'm not kidding at all. Do it now, read it immediately cover to cover, its like 90 pages, you can do it in an hour. That book was a significant factor in why I was #1 in my 1L class first semester. I didn't read it until a few days before my first exam.

2) Break it into sub-issues and keep it linear. This isn't poetry or an essay. It can read repetitive and boring. What it cannot be is meandering or disorganized. Don't make the professor search for points. Hand them to him or her on a platter.

So, you go like this.

The first issue is breach of contract between A and B.

In order for there to be a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valid consideration.

The first sub-issue is whether there was an offer. An offer is blah blah blah. On the one hand, blah. On the other hand, blah. Here, because A blah (bonus points - and because A didn't withdraw the offer), there was an offer.

The next sub-issue is whether there was proper acceptance. Acceptance is blah blah blah. Here, because B blah, there was acceptance.

The next sub-issue is whether there was adequate consideration. Consideration is blah. Here, because A blah and B blah, there was mutuality of obligation (or whatever the rule is, its been years since my K exam) and therefore adequate consideration. (Bonus points - Moreover, courts will generally not inquire into adequacy of consideration, as a peppercorn can be enough. Cite.)

Because there was a valid offer, acceptance, and consideration, the contract is valid and enforceable.

The next sub-issue is breach.........and so forth.

Linear. Each paragraph relates to ONE sub issue. Be disciplined and don't stray. Break it down into elements and IRAC each element. Yes, I said IRAC, and I meant it.

Edited because I suck at spelling.

Yep, organization is key. A well organized test that has the same exact stuff in it as another disorganized test will get the A+ while the other guy gets a B+ or A-. That is the biggest factor I have seen in exams.

Professors want organization. They don't want you to hide the ball on them at all.

When you're taking your contracts exam, take at least 10-15 minutes to organize your thoughts. Contracts is the one class where you can go on and endless circle of irrelevant bullshit that leads you nowhere except below median.

Remember that your professor is probably lazy, definitely hates grading exams, or most likely both. You thus want to keep your answer as organized and logical as possible.

Read the question in its entirety, read the call of the question, then read it again and take notes. Organize your thoughts and how you are going to attack the question. Organize the conflict pairs he asks you to discuss and then organize the causes of action/defenses each might have. Think about the conclusions you want to reach for each issue before you start writing to avoid going in some illogical, tangential, rant (i.e., write "Offer --> first memo isn't offer and is negotiation, second memo is the offer, etc.). Then write as fast as you possibly can.

Also, contracts is a class where you might find yourself in some irrelevant bullshit discussion about the history of some doctrine. Your professor doesn't give a shit about that, especially since he probably had to write some worthless article about it 10 years ago. Just tell him the rules he needs to know, keep your shit organized by conflict pair/relevant issues for each conflict pair, and logically move on.