Top Law Schools

So how do you attack contracts exams? Do you define promise, consideration each and every time? Negate (or follow) the UCC and Sof every time? Discuss every type of remedy? Bilateral v Unilateral? Or, do you just write what IS happening in the hypo?

Your professor should answer whether they want you to define everything while addressing the issues.

For mine I walked through from git to go.

ucc yes or no, if no then common law, then SOF analysis, then offer, consideration, acceptance or not, promissory estoppel, restitution, promissory restitution, etc...

On my specific test I discussed, illusory promises, performed a williston test, did a SOF for merchants, etc. The call of the question is important. They will allude to what they want you to do.

My professor specifically stated that each question was its own little world, and that in no case should one answer reference another.

So each question, you start from the beginning.

As mentioned above it really depends on your professor. Ask the professor or review their model answers.


I treated each question as separate. Meaning I defined each term a second time for the second question. Within a set question though I just referred definitions with a "see rules above" line.

My Contracts Essay Plan of Attack

UCC or CL? Offer? Option? Acceptance? Agreement to Agree? Consideration? If Option, Separate Consideration? If no offer/acceptance/consideration is there PE? EE? PR? UE?

If Contract, is it enforceable? SoF? UCC v. CL requirements. UCC or CL apply? If no SoF writing, does an exception apply?

If Contract enforceable, what are the terms? Battle of the Forms? Parol Evidence Rule?


Basically a very brief version of things to consider in a contracts essay.

Best method ever:

Read the hypo

Answer the question, if you saw an issue - discuss it and reason along one side

onthemoney wrote:So how do you attack contracts exams?

In Soviet Russia, contracts exams attack you!