LAW2102 Contract B
The Complete Exam Bible · S2 2026LAW2102 Overview
- Monash University
- S2 2026
- 11 chapters
- Law
LAW2102 Contract B is Monash University's second-year LLB core unit on the performance and discharge of contracts — the sequel to Contract A.
- Assessed by Written assignment (collaborative group + peer evaluation) 25% · Multiple-choice quiz 15% · Final examination 60%
- Key terms IRAC method, Condition vs intermediate term, Repudiation / anticipatory breach, Election (affirm vs terminate)
- How to prepare Treat Contract B as a skills subject, not a memorisation subject: the exam is open book, so your edge is retrieval speed and clean application.
What you get in the full LAW2102 Exam Bible
- 11 chapters, 92 pages — every examinable topic
- A practice bank written for this course in the Final examination format
- 11 worked examples, solved the way LAW2102 marks
- 14 computed figures, redrawn from the course’s own numbers
- Exam-morning plan for the Final examination (60%) — what to revise last, where marks are lost
Free on this page: assessment table, chapter map, one worked example, key terms, FAQ. The rest is in the full exam bible.
How LAW2102 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Written assignment (collaborative group + peer evaluation) | 25% | Group of ~3–5; 1,500-word limit (lose 1 mark per 100 words over); AGLC citation; question released early semester, due around mid-semester; mark individualised by compulsory FeedbackFruits peer evaluation; Turnitin; ULO1–6 (confirm the exact dates in your unit outline) |
| Multiple-choice quiz | 15% | Open book; 15 MCQ in 15 minutes, one attempt on Moodle drawn from a question bank; covers Topics 1–7 including the international CISG & UPICC content (the only assessment that examines it); ULO1,3,4,5 |
| Final examination | 60% | Open-book eExam; problem questions ('Advise X' on hypothetical facts) answered by IRAC; held in the official exam period; covers the whole Reading Guide EXCEPT the international content (which is quiz-only); ULO1–6 |
What other students are asking about LAW2102
- Where can I find lecture notes or study guides for LAW2102 at Monash?
- The LAW2102 study guide in AskSia Library covers Contract B in 11 chapters, with the assessment table, a chapter-by-chapter topic map, key terms and a worked example, free to read on this page.
- Is there a final exam in LAW2102, and how much is it worth?
- Yes. In the offering this AskSia Library guide is built from, Final examination carries 60% of the LAW2102 mark; the full split is Written assignment (collaborative group + peer evaluation) 25%, Multiple-choice quiz 15%, Final examination 60%.
- What does LAW2102 cover on termination by agreement & termination for breach?
- In AskSia Library's LAW2102 guide, the Termination by Agreement & Termination for Breach chapter explains topics 1–2 · ending by agreement (express clause / subsequent contract) · condition / warranty / intermediate term · essentiality test (Bancks, Luna Park, Schuler, Ankar) · serious breach of an intermediate term (Hong Kong Fir, Koompahtoo).
- What does LAW2102 cover on termination for repudiation & delay?
- In AskSia Library's LAW2102 guide, the Termination for Repudiation & Delay chapter explains topics 3–4 · repudiation = unwillingness/inability to perform · anticipatory breach (Carr v Berriman, Shevill, Foran v Wight) · erroneous interpretation · termination for delay, time of the essence and notice to complete (Laurinda).
- What does LAW2102 cover on consequences of, and restrictions on, termination?
- In AskSia Library's LAW2102 guide, the Consequences of, and Restrictions on, Termination chapter explains topics 6–7 · the election to affirm vs terminate (irrevocable; prospective discharge, accrued rights survive) · restrictions — election, readiness & willingness, estoppel, waiver, relief against forfeiture, good faith (Allianz v Delor Vue 2022).
What LAW2102 covers
The whole subject → one exam-ready map. Each topic links to its free chapter guide, built around the IRAC method the open-book final actually rewards.
How to Pass Contract B: IRAC & the Remedies Spine
Orientation · the IRAC method (Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion) · how the open-book exam is marked (application over recitation) · the whole-unit map: termination → remedies → frustration → vitiating factors.Contract B is examined almost entirely on one skill: running unfamiliar facts through the IRAC method in an open-book setting.
- Why open book changes everything — marks for application, not recitation of case facts
- The IRAC pipeline: Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion (Application = most marks)
- Issue-spotting against a checklist — spot every arguable issue, note the non-issues
- Stating the Rule with authority — case keyword in brackets, section number for statute
- Application — analogise AND distinguish the facts; raise the counter-argument
- Conclusion — a clear tentative answer on each issue; don't sit on the fence
Termination by Agreement & Termination for Breach
Topics 1–2 · ending by agreement (express clause / subsequent contract) · condition / warranty / intermediate term · essentiality test (Bancks, Luna Park, Schuler, Ankar) · serious breach of an intermediate term (Hong Kong Fir, Koompahtoo).This chapter covers the two everyday gateways to ending a contract: by agreement (an express termination clause or a later contract that discharges the old one) and for breach.
- Termination by agreement: express termination clause vs a subsequent discharging contract
- The three-way classification of terms: condition / warranty / intermediate (innominate) term
- Condition = essential term — any breach gives an immediate right to terminate
- The essentiality test: would the promisee not have contracted without strict/substantial performance? (Bancks; Luna Park)
- Labelling a term 'condition' is not decisive — construe the whole contract (Schuler v Wickman; Ankar)
- Intermediate terms — terminate only if breach deprives of substantially the whole benefit (Hong Kong Fir)
Termination for Repudiation & Delay
Topics 3–4 · repudiation = unwillingness/inability to perform · anticipatory breach (Carr v Berriman, Shevill, Foran v Wight) · erroneous interpretation · termination for delay, time of the essence and notice to complete (Laurinda).Beyond breach of a term, a contract can be terminated for repudiation — conduct evincing an unwillingness or inability to perform — including anticipatory breach, where a party renounces before performance falls due.
- Repudiation = conduct evincing unwillingness OR inability to perform contractual obligations
- The reasonable-person test — would a reasonable person conclude the party no longer intends to be bound?
- Anticipatory breach — renunciation before performance falls due gives an immediate right to elect
- The leading cases: Carr v Berriman, Shevill v Builders Licensing Board, Progressive Mailing House, Foran v Wight
- Erroneous interpretation — when insisting on a fundamentally wrong view of the contract is repudiation
- Termination for delay — mere delay is not automatically repudiatory
Consequences of, and Restrictions on, Termination
Topics 6–7 · the election to affirm vs terminate (irrevocable; prospective discharge, accrued rights survive) · restrictions — election, readiness & willingness, estoppel, waiver, relief against forfeiture, good faith (Allianz v Delor Vue 2022).Once a right to terminate arises, the innocent party must make an election: affirm (keep the contract on foot, both parties bound) or terminate (discharge future performance, with accrued rights surviving).
- The election: affirm vs terminate once a right to terminate has arisen
- Affirm — keep the contract on foot; both parties remain bound to future performance
- Terminate — future obligations discharged; accrued rights survive (prospective, not ab initio)
- The election is generally irrevocable once communicated or manifested
- Restriction — election to affirm bars later termination on the same breach
- Restriction — readiness and willingness: the terminating party must itself be ready and willing to perform
Damages for Breach of Contract
Topic 8 · expectation/loss-of-bargain (Robinson v Harman; Amann; Tabcorp) · reliance (Cessnock 2024) · causation (Alexander) · remoteness (Hadley two limbs; Victoria Laundry) · mitigation (Burns) · non-pecuniary loss & psychiatric injury (Baltic Shipping; Elisha 2024).Damages are the workhorse remedy.
- The compensatory principle — as if performed (Robinson v Harman; Amann; Tabcorp)
- Measures: loss of bargain / expectation (difference in value or cost of cure) vs reliance
- Reliance (wasted expenditure) and Cessnock (2024) — 'a fair wind, not a free ride'
- Causation — the breach must cause the loss (Alexander v Cambridge Credit)
- Remoteness — Hadley v Baxendale's two limbs (Victoria Laundry; The Heron II)
- Mitigation — reasonable steps; no recovery for avoidable loss (Burns)
Liquidated Damages, Penalties & Specific Performance
Topics 9–10 · the penalty doctrine (legitimate interest; extravagant/out of all proportion — Paciocco, Andrews v ANZ) vs enforceable liquidated damages · specific performance as discretionary equity (damages inadequate; unique subject matter; bars).This chapter pairs two remedy questions.
- Liquidated damages vs penalty — a fixed sum on breach is enforceable unless it is a penalty
- The penalty test — extravagant / out of all proportion to the greatest conceivable loss
- The legitimate-interest test (Paciocco) — does the clause protect a legitimate interest?
- Andrews v ANZ — the doctrine can apply even absent breach (collateral stipulation)
- Consequence of a penalty — unenforceable beyond actual loss; fall back on Robinson v Harman damages
- Specific performance — discretionary equity; available only where damages are inadequate
Action for Debt
Topic 11 · recovering a fixed sum (no proof of loss, no mitigation) · entire vs divisible obligations · substantial performance · affirm-and-sue-for-the-price with a legitimate interest (White & Carter v McGregor) cf no legitimate interest (Clea Shipping / The Alaskan Trader).An action for debt claims a fixed, liquidated sum owing under the contract (typically the price) — not damages. Its advantages are significant: no need to prove loss, the sum is fixed, and mitigation does not apply.
- Action for debt = a claim for a fixed/liquidated sum owing (e.g. the price), not damages
- Advantages — no proof of loss, fixed sum, and mitigation does not apply
- The obligation to pay must have accrued (work done / debt due)
- Entire vs divisible obligations — entire must be fully performed before payment is due
- Substantial performance softens the entire-obligations rule; apportionment legislation can sever
- Affirm-and-sue-for-the-price — perform despite repudiation, then claim the debt
Frustration of Contracts
Topic 13 · radically/fundamentally different performance (Codelfa; Davis Contractors) · categories (destruction, basis, state of affairs, illegality, delay) · limitations (self-induced, foreseeability, risk allocation, mere hardship) · automatic discharge and Victorian ACLFTA adjustments.Frustration discharges a contract automatically where a supervening event — not the fault of either party and not provided for — makes performance radically or fundamentally different from what was undertaken (Codelfa; Davis Contractors).
- The doctrine — a supervening event makes performance radically/fundamentally different
- The leading test — Codelfa ('radically different'); Davis Contractors
- Categories — destruction of subject matter (Taylor v Caldwell); disappearance of the basis (Krell v Henry)
- Categories — disappearance of a state of affairs essential; illegality; delay
- Limitations — self-induced frustration; foreseeability; risk expressly/impliedly allocated; mere hardship is not frustration
- Consequence — the contract is automatically discharged at the time of the frustrating event (prospective)
Common-Law Vitiating Factors & Rescission
Topics 14–15 · duress incl. economic duress (Universe Tankships; Crescendo) · undue influence actual & presumed (Johnson v Buttress) · unconscionable dealing (Amadio, Blomley v Ryan, Thorne v Kennedy) · rescission ab initio with substantial restoration (Alati v Kruger) and bars (Henjo).Where a vitiating factor is made out, the contract is voidable and the innocent party may elect to rescind.
- Vitiating factor made out → contract VOIDABLE → innocent party may elect to rescind
- Duress — illegitimate pressure + induced the contract + no practical alternative
- Economic duress — esp. a threatened breach as illegitimate pressure (Universe Tankships; Crescendo)
- Undue influence — actual (proved) vs presumed (from a relationship of trust/confidence)
- Presumed undue influence shifts the onus; rebuttal by independent advice (Johnson v Buttress)
- Unconscionable dealing — special disadvantage + known + unconscientious advantage taken (Amadio; Blomley v Ryan; Thorne v Kennedy)
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (ACL s 18)
Topic 16 · ACL s 18 — conduct, in trade or commerce, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead · silence/half-truths and future representations (s 4) · the relevant audience/class (Butcher; Campomar v Nike) · causation/reliance · disclaimers.Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
- ACL s 18 — no person, in trade or commerce, shall engage in misleading or deceptive conduct (or conduct likely to mislead)
- Strict liability — no intent required; the focus is on the effect of the conduct
- Identify the conduct — including silence/half-truths where disclosure is reasonably expected
- Future representations — s 4 ACL: a future representation without reasonable grounds is misleading (onus on representor)
- 'In trade or commerce' — the real-commercial-dealings character of the conduct
- The relevant audience/class — ordinary/reasonable members (Campomar v Nike)
Statutory Unconscionability & Remedies (ACL ss 20–22, 236–243)
Topics 17–18 · ACL s 20 (equity standard, residual) vs s 21 (supply/acquisition; broader; post-contractual) — normative standard of acceptable commercial behaviour (Lux; Kobelt; Stubbings v Jams 2 2022) · the s 22 factors · statutory remedies — s 236 damages, s 237/243 orders/refund.The final chapter covers statutory unconscionability and the Australian Consumer Law remedies that close out a contract problem.
- ACL s 20 — unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law (equity); residual (not if s 21 applies)
- ACL s 21 — statutory unconscionability connected with supply/acquisition of goods or services
- s 21 is broader than the common law (s 21(4)(a)) and can capture post-contractual conduct (s 21(4)(c))
- The normative standard — conduct 'far outside the norms of acceptable commercial behaviour' (Lux; Kobelt)
- Stubbings v Jams 2 (2022) — predatory asset-based lending; s 21 made out
- The s 22 factors — bargaining positions, unfair tactics, availability elsewhere, consistency, good faith
Building on formation and terms, it covers when a contract can be ended (termination by agreement, for breach of a condition or intermediate term, for repudiation or delay), the remedies for breach (damages, liquidated damages and penalties, specific performance, action for debt), the doctrine of frustration, and the vitiating factors that make a contract voidable — duress, undue influence and unconscionable dealing at common law (with rescission), and misleading or deceptive conduct and statutory unconscionability under the Australian Consumer Law.
It is exam-dominant and open book: a 25% collaborative written assignment, a 15% open-book multiple-choice quiz on the early termination topics (the only place the international CISG & UPICC content is examined), and a 60% open-book final exam of "Advise X" problem questions answered by the IRAC method (Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion).
There is no single-component hurdle.
Because the exam is open book, marks come not from memorising cases but from applying the right test and authority to the facts — analogising and distinguishing the leading cases, weighing counter-arguments and reaching a clear conclusion.
LAW2102 cheatsheet for the final exam
AskSia publishes a free LAW2102 cheatsheet for the final exam, a cheat sheet that follows the official permitted-materials rule for this assessment and condenses the topics in this guide.
Worked example · free
An 'Advise X' problem on damages: causation, remoteness and mitigation (Topic 8)
- 2 marksIssue. Identify the quantum-of-damages issues: the measure of loss, and whether each head of loss survives causation, remoteness and mitigation.
- 3 marksRule. Damages put the innocent party in the position as if the contract had been performed (Robinson v Harman; Amann). The loss must be caused by the breach (Alexander v Cambridge Credit), not too remote (Hadley v Baxendale — limb 1 losses arising naturally, limb 2 losses in both parties' reasonable contemplation; Victoria Laundry), and the plaintiff must take reasonable steps to mitigate (Burns).
- 2 marksApplication — recoverable heads. The $6,000 extra cost of cover (26,000 − 20,000) and the $15,000 ordinary lost profit arise naturally in the ordinary course (Hadley limb 1) and are recoverable; buying substitute apples shows reasonable mitigation.
- 2 marksApplication — the remote head. The $8,000 special promotion loss was never communicated to Orchard, so it is likely too remote under Hadley limb 2 — not within both parties' reasonable contemplation at contract time as a serious possibility. Counter-argument: if Orchard knew Pieworks generally supplied supermarkets, some special loss might have been contemplated.
- 3 marksConclusion. Pieworks recovers roughly $21,000 (cover cost + ordinary lost profit), subject to mitigation; the special $8,000 promotion loss probably fails for remoteness absent prior notice. State the conclusion clearly rather than sitting on the fence.
Key terms
- IRAC method
- The structure every Contract B exam answer follows: Issue (spot every arguable legal issue), Rule (state the test precisely with case/section authority), Application (apply, analogise and distinguish the cases to the facts — where most marks live), Conclusion (a clear, tentative answer on each issue).
- Condition vs intermediate term
- A condition is an essential term — any breach gives an immediate right to terminate (essentiality test: Bancks; Luna Park). An intermediate (innominate) term permits termination only if the breach deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract (Hong Kong Fir; Koompahtoo). A warranty breach sounds in damages only.
- Repudiation / anticipatory breach
- Conduct evincing an unwillingness or inability to perform, or to perform only in a manner substantially inconsistent with the contract (Carr v Berriman; Shevill). A clear renunciation before performance falls due is anticipatory breach, giving the innocent party an immediate right to elect.
- Election (affirm vs terminate)
- Once a right to terminate arises, the innocent party must elect to affirm (keep the contract on foot, both parties bound) or terminate (discharge future performance; accrued rights survive). The election, once communicated or manifested, is generally irrevocable, and termination operates prospectively, not ab initio.
- Penalty doctrine
- A clause fixing a sum payable on breach is enforceable as liquidated damages unless it is a penalty — extravagant and out of all proportion to the greatest conceivable loss, or failing to protect a legitimate interest of the innocent party (Paciocco v ANZ; Andrews v ANZ). A penalty is unenforceable beyond actual loss, so the innocent party falls back on ordinary damages (Robinson v Harman).
- Statutory unconscionability (ACL s 21)
- Unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply or acquisition of goods or services — broader than the common law, can capture post-contractual conduct, and is judged against a normative standard of acceptable commercial behaviour (Lux; Kobelt; Stubbings v Jams 2). Remedies run through ss 236, 237 and 243 of the Australian Consumer Law.
LAW2102 FAQ
Is LAW2102 hard?
It is demanding but very learnable once you train the right skill. Contract B layers many doctrines (termination, remedies, frustration, vitiating factors and the ACL) on top of Contract A, and the 60% final is an open-book problem exam — so it does not reward memorising. The students who do well drill the IRAC method and a decision-tree per doctrine, then practise applying cases to unfamiliar facts.
That is exactly what this guide builds.
Is the final exam a hurdle in LAW2102?
No single-component hurdle is stated in the source materials — you pass on the weighted total across the 25% assignment, the 15% quiz and the 60% exam. The exam is by far the largest stake at 60%. Workshops are described as essential exam preparation, but no attendance or exam percentage hurdle is stated; confirm the current requirements in your unit outline.
What does 'open book' actually mean for the exam, and how should I prepare?
Open book means you can bring your materials, so memorising cases earns almost nothing — the examiner knows the cases better than you. The marks come from applying the right test and authority to the facts. The winning preparation is a fast, tabbed kit: an issue-spotting checklist, a decision-tree per doctrine, and the leading-case keywords ready to drop into the Rule step, so exam time goes to Application, not searching.
Is the international content (CISG and UPICC) on the final exam?
No. The international contract-law content (the CISG and the UNIDROIT Principles, Topic 5) is examined only in the 15% multiple-choice quiz, not in the 60% final exam. The final covers the whole Reading Guide except that international material, so prioritise the domestic doctrines for the exam and revise CISG/UPICC for the quiz.
Which cases do I really need to know for the exam?
Know the leading authority for each doctrine plus the recent High Court developments the unit flags: termination (Bancks, Hong Kong Fir, Koompahtoo, Shevill, Laurinda), damages (Robinson v Harman, Hadley v Baxendale, plus Cessnock 2024 on reliance damages and Elisha 2024 on psychiatric-injury damages), penalties (Paciocco, Andrews), frustration (Codelfa), vitiating factors (Universe Tankships, Johnson v Buttress, Amadio, Thorne v Kennedy, Alati v Kruger, Henjo), and the ACL (Butcher, Campomar, Lux, Kobelt, Stubbings v Jams 2).
Questions students ask in each LAW2102 chapter
- What exactly is the IRAC method and why does it matter so much?
- IRAC is Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — the structure every exam answer follows. It matters because the marking scheme tracks it: you earn marks for spotting the right issues, stating the test accurately with authority, applying and distinguishing the cases on the facts, and reaching a clear conclusion. The single biggest swing is Application, so an answer that states the rule briefly and then argues the facts hard beats one that recites case facts. Chapter 01 · How to Pass Contract B: IRAC & the Remedies Spine
- How do I tell a condition from an intermediate term in the exam?
- Ask the essentiality question first: would the promisee not have contracted without assurance of strict or substantial performance of this promise (Bancks; Luna Park)? If yes, it is a condition and any breach permits termination. If you cannot be confident, treat it as an intermediate term and apply the Hong Kong Fir / Koompahtoo test — did the breach deprive the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit? Arguing both routes is safe and well-rewarded. Chapter 02 · Termination by Agreement & Termination for Breach
- What counts as repudiation?
- Conduct from which a reasonable person would conclude the party is unwilling or unable to perform, or will perform only in a way substantially inconsistent with the contract (Carr v Berriman; Shevill). A clear refusal ('we won't perform'), an act making performance impossible, or insistence on a fundamentally wrong view of obligations can all qualify. It is judged objectively on the conduct, not on the party's private intention. Chapter 03 · Termination for Repudiation & Delay
- What is the election and why does it matter?
- When a right to terminate arises, the innocent party must elect to affirm (keep the contract on foot) or terminate (end future performance). It matters because the election is generally irrevocable once communicated or manifested by conduct — so a party that keeps dealing under the contract may be held to have affirmed and lost the right to terminate on that breach. The election is the pivot of most consequences-of-termination problems. Chapter 04 · Consequences of, and Restrictions on, Termination
- What is the basic measure of contract damages?
- The compensatory principle from Robinson v Harman: damages put the innocent party, so far as money can, in the position as if the contract had been performed. The default is expectation (loss-of-bargain) damages, measured as the difference in value or the cost of cure (Tabcorp). Reliance (wasted expenditure) is available as an alternative, especially when expectation loss cannot be proved. Chapter 05 · Damages for Breach of Contract
- How do I decide whether a clause is liquidated damages or a penalty?
- Apply the Paciocco test: a clause fixing a sum on breach is enforceable unless it is extravagant and out of all proportion to the greatest conceivable loss, or fails to protect a legitimate interest of the innocent party. Identify the legitimate interest the clause protects, then ask whether the sum is proportionate to it. The contract's own label ('liquidated damages') does not settle the question. Chapter 06 · Liquidated Damages, Penalties & Specific Performance
- How is an action for debt different from a claim for damages?
- An action for debt recovers a fixed sum already owing under the contract (the price), so the claimant need not prove any loss and mitigation does not apply. A damages claim compensates for loss caused by breach and is subject to causation, remoteness and the duty to mitigate. The debt route is more powerful where it is available — which is why the affirm-and-sue-for-the-price question matters. Chapter 07 · Action for Debt
- What is frustration and how high is the bar?
- Frustration discharges a contract where a supervening, non-self-induced, unprovided-for event makes performance radically or fundamentally different from what was undertaken (Codelfa; Davis Contractors). The bar is high: mere hardship, increased cost or inconvenience is not enough. The performance must be transformed into something essentially different, not just harder. Chapter 08 · Frustration of Contracts
- What is the difference between duress, undue influence and unconscionable dealing?
- All three are vitiating factors making a contract voidable, but the focus differs. Duress is about illegitimate pressure that overbears the victim's will, leaving no practical alternative (Universe Tankships). Undue influence is about a relationship of trust in which one party's will is dominated, so the transaction is not a free, independent act (Johnson v Buttress). Unconscionable dealing is about a stronger party exploiting a known special disadvantage of a weaker party (Amadio). They overlap on the facts, so run whichever the facts support — often more than one. Chapter 09 · Common-Law Vitiating Factors & Rescission
- What does ACL s 18 prohibit?
- It prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. It is strict liability, so no intention to mislead is required — the question is the effect of the conduct on the relevant audience. It is the statutory workhorse alongside the common-law vitiating factors and is frequently pleaded together with them. Chapter 10 · Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (ACL s 18)
- When do I use ACL s 21 rather than s 20?
- Use s 21 whenever the conduct is connected with the supply or acquisition of goods or services — which is most commercial dealings. Section 20 is residual and applies the equitable Amadio standard, but it cannot be used where s 21 applies. Because s 21 is broader (not limited to special-disadvantage cases and able to catch post-contractual conduct), it is usually the stronger and correct pleading for a supply/acquisition problem. Chapter 11 · Statutory Unconscionability & Remedies (ACL ss 20–22, 236–243)
How to study for the exam
Treat Contract B as a skills subject, not a memorisation subject: the exam is open book, so your edge is retrieval speed and clean application. (1) Build the spine first — learn the 'where are we?' map (termination → remedies → frustration → vitiating factors → ACL) so you can place any fact pattern instantly.
(2) Make one decision-tree per doctrine (the 'can I terminate?' tree, the penalty flowchart, the vitiating-factors menu, the s 18 checklist) and keep them tabbed for the exam.
(3) Drill the IRAC ritual until it is automatic — Issue, then Rule with a case keyword in brackets, then Application that analogises AND distinguishes the facts and names the counter-argument, then a clear tentative Conclusion; partial marks reward every step and almost none reward reciting case facts.
(4) Practise on common-fact 'Advise X' scenarios that bundle several doctrines, because the real exam runs one set of facts through termination, remedies and a vitiating factor at once. (5) Keep the current High Court canon at your fingertips (Cessnock 2024, Elisha 2024, Allianz v Delor Vue 2022, Stubbings v Jams 2 2022).
(6) Remember the exclusions — the international content is quiz-only, and restitution, injunctions/equitable damages, Yerkey/Garcia and the ACL damages-measurement cases are not examinable — so don't waste exam revision on them.