LAW2102 · Contract B
The Complete Exam Bible · S2 2026Contract B
LAW2102 Contract B is Monash University's second-year LLB core unit on the performance and discharge of contracts — the sequel to Contract A. 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.
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 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 |
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).
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.
