LAW2102: pass the exams, not just read the notes
Your complete guide to Monash University's contract b unit. See where the marks are, work real practice questions, and study with an AI tutor that knows LAW2102.
Sia generates LAW2102 practice questions, walks through termination by agreement and termination for repudiation step by step, and quizzes you on the material the exam weights most heavily.
Sharpen your argument
Pieworks contracted to buy 1,000 trays of apples from Orchard Foods for $20,000; it would have netted $15,000 profit reselling pies. Orchard fails to supply. Pieworks buys substitute apples for $26,000 and ALSO loses a one-off $8,000 supermarket promotion that it never mentioned to Orchard. A student is advising Pieworks on damages. Which advice is the strongest?
Start with the measure: damages put Pieworks in the position as if the contract had been performed (Robinson v Harman), so the baseline is the bargain it lost, not just out-of-pocket cost.
The $8,000 one-off promotion was never communicated to Orchard, so it is special loss assessed under the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale: it is recoverable only if it was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting as a serious possibility. With no notice, it is likely too remote.
That gives roughly $21,000 (the $6,000 cover cost plus the $15,000 ordinary profit), with the $8,000 failing for remoteness absent prior notice, which is option B.
Eliminate the others: A ignores remoteness and the second limb; C confuses mitigation (which limits avoidable loss, not the lost bargain) with suffering no loss; D wrongly states that lost profit is never recoverable, when expectation loss is the very thing Robinson v Harman protects.
The weaker choice: Treating every consequence that follows the breach as recoverable, so the uncommunicated $8,000 promotion looks like fair game because the breach 'caused' it. Causation is necessary but not sufficient: special, non-ordinary losses must also pass the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale, which requires that the loss was within both parties' reasonable contemplation at the time of contracting. Without prior notice, it is too remote. watch this!
One exam decides 60% of your grade. Marked on IRAC: issue identification, the rule with case or section authority, application by analogising or distinguishing cases, and a clear tentative conclusion; almost no marks for reciting case facts. This whole page is built around that.
Overview
What LAW2102 is, and where it sits
LAW2102 Contract B is the second-year LLB core unit at Monash University's Faculty of Law that picks up where Contract A leaves off. Contract A covers formation, terms and construction; Contract B is the law of what happens next: performance, discharge and remedies. It assumes the formation material is known and starts at termination, then works through the full remedies toolkit, frustration, the common-law vitiating factors and the statutory regime under the Australian Consumer Law. The unifying skill is the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) applied to 'Advise X' problem questions.
The doctrine falls into a clear spine. First, termination: ending a contract by agreement or for breach (the condition, warranty and intermediate-term classification), for repudiation and for delay, then the consequences of, and restrictions on, the right to terminate (the election to affirm or terminate, waiver and estoppel). Second, remedies: damages (causation, remoteness under Hadley v Baxendale, and mitigation), liquidated damages and penalties, specific performance, and the action for debt. Third, frustration. Fourth, the vitiating factors: at common law duress, undue influence and unconscionable dealing leading to rescission, and under statute misleading or deceptive conduct (ACL s 18) and statutory unconscionability with the ACL remedies (ss 236, 237 and 243).
The unit is current with recent High Court developments and examines them: Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 (2024) on reliance damages, Elisha v Vision Australia (2024) on damages for psychiatric injury, Allianz v Delor Vue (2022) on waiver and election, and Stubbings v Jams 2 (2022) on statutory unconscionability. It is open-book throughout the assessment, which sounds reassuring but is not: the 60% final is a problem-question exam marked almost entirely on applying cases to the facts (not on reciting case facts), so the win is retrieval speed and a tabbed, exam-ready issue checklist, not memorisation.
Difficulty & time commitment
Is LAW2102 hard, and how much time does it take?
LAW2102 is manageable if you keep a weekly rhythm and treat the back half as the main event. Across student reviews the pattern is consistent: it starts gently and steepens, and the heaviest assessment is the part that separates grades.
The difficulty curve and the assessment weighting point the same way: the back half is harder and worth more. Front-loading effort there is the highest-return decision in the unit.
Is this unit for you
Who tends to do well, and who tends to struggle
You will likely do well if
- You internalise IRAC and practise it: every answer is Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion, and the marks live in the Application step where you analogise or distinguish cases against the facts.
- You build a tabbed, exam-ready outline and issue checklist per doctrine (the termination ladder, the penalty flowchart, the vitiating-factors menu, the s 18 checklist) because the exam is open book and the win is retrieval speed.
- You learn to USE cases by their keyword and ratio (cite 'Robinson v Harman' for the measure, the limbs of 'Hadley v Baxendale' for remoteness) rather than memorising and reciting their facts.
- You keep current with the recent High Court canon the unit flags (Cessnock and Elisha 2024, Allianz v Delor Vue and Stubbings v Jams 2 2022) and can deploy each in the right issue.
You may struggle if
- You treat open book as a substitute for preparation and plan to read textbooks during the exam; there is no time, and the marks are for application, not for finding a passage.
- You recite case facts and long quotes instead of stating the rule crisply with authority and then applying it; the exam-tips guidance is that the examiner already knows the cases.
- You sit on the fence and never commit to a tentative conclusion on each issue, when how you reason to a defensible conclusion is exactly what is marked.
- You leave the heavier exam-weighted back half (damages, frustration, the vitiating factors and the ACL) to cram, having spent your effort on the termination topics that open the unit.
- Drill real-style 'Advise X' problems under timed, open-book conditions, writing full IRAC answers rather than reading notes, until issue-spotting and rule-citation are automatic.
- Build a one-page decision tree per doctrine (the can-I-terminate-for-breach tree, the damages gauntlet, the penalty-doctrine flowchart, the frustration test and the s 20-versus-s 21 split) and rehearse running facts through each.
- For every leading case, learn the one-line rule it stands for and the keyword to cite, not its facts, so you can pull the right authority instantly under exam pressure.
- Where facts are missing, state what further facts you would need and what difference each would make, and always run the counter-argument before committing to a tentative conclusion; both are explicitly rewarded.
Syllabus
The 11 topics, topic by topic
The exam-weight marker on each topic shows where the marks concentrate. The amber topics carry the highest exam weight.
Ch1 · How to pass Contract B: IRAC and the remedies spine
Topic mapOrientation and the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion), how the open-book exam is marked (application over recitation), and the whole-unit map: termination then remedies then frustration then vitiating factors.
Ch2 · Termination by agreement and termination for breach
Topics 1 to 2Ending a contract by an express clause or a subsequent agreement; the condition, warranty and intermediate-term classification; the essentiality test (Associated Newspapers v Bancks, Luna Park v Tramways, Schuler v Wickman, Ankar); serious breach of an intermediate term (Hong Kong Fir, Koompahtoo v Sanpine).
Ch3 · Termination for repudiation and delay
Topics 3 to 5Repudiation as conduct evincing unwillingness or inability to perform, including anticipatory breach (Carr v Berriman, Shevill, Foran v Wight); termination for delay, time of the essence and the notice to complete (Laurinda). Topic 5 (international termination under the CISG and UPICC) is quiz-only.
Ch4 · Consequences of, and restrictions on, termination
Topics 6 to 7The election to affirm (contract on foot) or terminate (future obligations discharged, accrued rights survive); termination operates prospectively. Restrictions on the right to terminate: election, readiness and willingness, estoppel, waiver, relief against forfeiture and good faith (Allianz v Delor Vue).
Ch5 · Damages for breach of contract
Topic 8The compensatory principle (Robinson v Harman): expectation and loss of bargain, reliance damages and the Cessnock (2024) inference; causation; remoteness on both limbs of Hadley v Baxendale; mitigation; non-pecuniary loss (Baltic Shipping) and psychiatric injury (Elisha 2024).
Ch6 · Liquidated damages, penalties and specific performance
Topics 9 to 10The penalty test (out of all proportion to the greatest loss, or no legitimate interest: Paciocco v ANZ, Andrews v ANZ) and the penalty-doctrine flowchart; specific performance as a discretionary equitable order where damages are inadequate, with its discretionary bars.
Ch7 · Action for debt
Topic 11A claim for a fixed sum owing (not damages): no need to prove loss and no mitigation; entire versus divisible obligations and substantial performance; affirm and sue for the price where there is a legitimate interest (White & Carter v McGregor) versus where there is not (Clea Shipping, The Alaskan Trader).
Ch8 · Frustration of contracts
Topic 13A supervening, non-self-induced, unprovided-for event making performance radically different (Codelfa, Davis Contractors); categories (destruction of subject matter, disappearance of the basis, illegality, delay); limitations (self-induced, foreseeability, risk allocation, mere hardship); automatic discharge and the Victorian ACLFTA adjustment.
Ch9 · Common-law vitiating factors and rescission
Topics 14 to 15Duress (illegitimate pressure, inducement, no practical alternative: Universe Tankships, Crescendo); undue influence, actual and presumed (Johnson v Buttress); unconscionable dealing (special disadvantage, knowledge, advantage taken: Amadio, Blomley v Ryan, Thorne v Kennedy); the contract is voidable, leading to rescission ab initio (Alati v Kruger, with Henjo bars).
Ch10 · Misleading or deceptive conduct (ACL s 18)
Topic 16The s 18 checklist: conduct (including silence and future representations under s 4), in trade or commerce, the relevant audience or class led or likely to be led into error (Butcher v Lachlan Elder, Campomar v Nike), and causation or reliance; strict liability, no intent needed.
Ch11 · Statutory unconscionability and remedies (ACL ss 20 to 22, 236 to 243)
Topics 17 to 18s 20 (equity standard, residual) versus s 21 (broader than common law, captures post-contractual conduct, judged against a normative standard of acceptable community values: Lux, Kobelt, Stubbings v Jams 2); the s 22 factors checklist; remedies under s 236 (damages), s 237 and s 243 (compensatory and rescission-type orders).
How it's assessed
Assessment structure
| Component | Weight | Format & timing |
|---|---|---|
| Collaborative group written assignment | 25% | Group of about 3 to 5 (allocated by Week 3 in workshops). Written advice on a released question with a 1,500-word limit (excluding footnotes and the AI statement; 1 mark lost per 100 words over). AGLC citation, submitted via Turnitin. The mark is individualised by a compulsory FeedbackFruits peer evaluation. Question released 4pm Thursday 26 March; due Friday 24 April 2026, 11:55pm (S1 2026 dates; S2 dates differ). Peer evaluation individualises the group mark; no single-component hurdle. |
| Multiple-choice quiz | 15% | Open-book, 15 multiple-choice questions in 15 minutes, one attempt on Moodle, randomly drawn from a question bank. Covers Topics 1 to 7 including the international content (CISG and UPICC). Opened Monday 30 March; closed Tuesday 31 March 2026, 11:55pm (S1 2026 dates). The international content (CISG and UPICC) is examined here, not on the final. |
| Final examination | 60% | Open-book eExam of problem questions: advise on hypothetical fact scenarios using IRAC. Past papers run about 3 linked problem questions totalling 60 marks on a common set of facts, with the exact split varying by year. Covers all topics, cases and legislation in the Reading Guide EXCEPT the international aspects (CISG and UPICC), which are tested only in the quiz. Held in the formal Monash examination period at the end of the teaching period. Marked on IRAC: issue identification, the rule with case or section authority, application by analogising or distinguishing cases, and a clear tentative conclusion; almost no marks for reciting case facts. |
- Pass on a weighted average of at least 50%. No single-component hurdle is stated in the unit materials reviewed (workshops are described as essential for exam preparation but no attendance or exam hurdle percentage is set).
- Open-book problem-question final (about 3 linked 'Advise X' scenarios, 60 marks total) answered in IRAC. Because it is open book, marks come from applying authorities to the facts and reaching a defensible conclusion, not from summarising cases.
- Calculator policy: No calculator is needed: the unit has no formulae beyond trivial damages arithmetic. All assessment is open-book, so the asset is a pre-built issue checklist and outline, not memorisation.
This is an exam-cram unit. With the exams at 60% of the grade and the final examination alone at 60%, your result is overwhelmingly decided by how well you perform under time pressure. Marked on IRAC: issue identification, the rule with case or section authority, application by analogising or distinguishing cases, and a clear tentative conclusion; almost no marks for reciting case facts.
Final exam timing: approx Nov 2026 (S2 2026 offering, confirm against the official Monash exam timetable). Confirm the exact date and venue on the official exam timetable.
How to actually pass it
A weekly rhythm, two checklists, and the traps to avoid
The unit rewards consistency over cramming, and practice over re-reading. Here is the loop that works, then what to have nailed before each exam.
The weekly loop
Before the mid-semester checklist
- Lock down Topics 1 to 7 (termination by agreement and for breach, repudiation and delay, the election and the restrictions) because the 15% quiz covers them, including the international CISG and UPICC content.
- Be able to classify a term as a condition, warranty or intermediate term and apply the essentiality and substantial-benefit tests instantly.
- Map the election fork (affirm versus terminate) and the restrictions row (election, readiness and willingness, estoppel, waiver, relief against forfeiture, good faith) before the quiz.
- Practise the open-book quiz format: 15 multiple-choice questions in 15 minutes is fast, so your outline must be navigable, not exhaustive.
Before the final heaviest topics
- Prioritise the exam-weighted back half: damages (causation, both limbs of remoteness, mitigation, Cessnock reliance and Elisha psychiatric injury), liquidated damages and penalties, action for debt, frustration, the common-law vitiating factors with rescission, and the ACL s 18 and ss 20 to 22 regime.
- Remember the final EXCLUDES the international CISG and UPICC content (it is quiz-only), and that restitution, injunctions and equitable damages are not examinable, so do not waste exam time on them.
- Work full past-style problem questions in IRAC under timed, open-book conditions, then mark your method against the IRAC criteria, not just the conclusion.
- Pre-tab your outline by doctrine with the leading case keywords and the relevant ACL sections so you can retrieve the right authority in seconds during the open-book exam.
- Rehearse stating, for each issue, the rule with authority then the application both ways (analogise and distinguish) before a tentative conclusion, since that structure is what earns the marks.
The mistakes that cost marks
Treating open book as a reason not to prepare. Open book rewards a navigable, pre-built outline and fast retrieval, not reading during the exam. Students who plan to look things up on the day run out of time and lose the application marks. Build the issue checklist and the per-doctrine decision trees in advance.
Reciting case facts instead of applying the rule. The exam-tips guidance is explicit that the examiner knows the cases better than you, so there are almost no marks for summarising facts. State the rule crisply with the case keyword or section, then spend your words applying it to the problem facts and running the counter-argument.
Skipping the remoteness second limb on damages. Students award every loss that follows the breach. Special, non-ordinary losses must pass the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale: they are recoverable only if within both parties' reasonable contemplation at the time of contracting. Causation alone is not enough.
Confusing the common-law and statutory unconscionability standards. Section 20 of the ACL applies the equity (Amadio) standard and is residual; section 21 is broader than the common law, is not limited to special-disadvantage cases and can capture post-contractual conduct, judged against a normative standard of acceptable community values. Pick the right provision before you analyse.
Teaching team
Who teaches LAW2102
The bios below are factual. The star ratings are not ours: they are impressions from students who have taken the unit, so you can hear from people who sat in the lectures.
Karen Abidi
Karen Abidi is the Chief Examiner and a Lecturer for LAW2102 Contract B, and responds to student questions on the unit forum.
Jesse Jager
Jesse Jager is a Lecturer for LAW2102 Contract B.
Teaching team as listed in the unit materials reviewed. AskSia does not rate lecturers; star ratings are submitted by students who have taken LAW2102.
Where it fits
Prerequisites, related units & why it matters
Contract A is the prerequisite: Contract B is its sequel and assumes formation, terms and construction are known, so it does not re-teach them. It is a core unit in the Monash LLB and is offered in both semesters.
Your LAW2102 study toolkit
Study the unit with Sia, not just read about it
Each tool already knows LAW2102: your syllabus, your texts, and where the marks are. Grouped by how you study, from first contact to exam week.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is LAW2102 Contract B hard?
It is moderate-to-hard for a second-year LLB core. There is no maths, but 75% of the mark sits in a written group assignment and a 60% open-book problem-question final, both marked on applying a large case canon to the facts rather than recall. Open book sounds easier than it is: you still need fast retrieval and a pre-built issue checklist to score well under time pressure.
How is Contract B assessed?
Three pieces: a 25% collaborative group written assignment (1,500-word advice, individualised by a FeedbackFruits peer evaluation), a 15% open-book multiple-choice quiz (15 questions in 15 minutes, covering Topics 1 to 7 including the international CISG and UPICC content), and a 60% open-book final exam of IRAC problem questions. You pass on a weighted average of at least 50%, with no single-component hurdle stated in the materials reviewed.
What is the final exam like?
It is an open-book eExam of problem questions: you advise on hypothetical fact scenarios using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion). Past papers run about three linked problem questions totalling 60 marks on a common set of facts, with the split varying by year. It covers everything in the Reading Guide except the international aspects (CISG and UPICC), which are tested only in the quiz.
Does open book mean it is easy?
No. The marks are for application, not recitation: analogising or distinguishing cases against the facts, raising counter-arguments and reaching a clear tentative conclusion. The exam-tips guidance is blunt that the examiner knows the cases better than you, so there are almost no marks for reciting case facts. Walk in with a tabbed outline and an issue checklist, not with the intention of reading textbooks during the exam.
Which recent cases does the unit examine?
It is current with High Court developments: Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 (2024) on reliance damages (a 'fair wind, not a free ride'), Elisha v Vision Australia (2024) on damages for psychiatric injury, Allianz v Delor Vue (2022) on waiver and election, and Stubbings v Jams 2 (2022) on statutory unconscionability. The Paciocco and Andrews penalty cases and the Amadio line on unconscionable dealing are also central.
What is on the syllabus, and what is NOT examinable?
The unit runs through termination (by agreement, for breach, for repudiation and delay, and the consequences of and restrictions on it), remedies (damages, liquidated damages and penalties, specific performance, action for debt), frustration, the common-law vitiating factors (duress, undue influence, unconscionable dealing and rescission) and the statutory regime under the Australian Consumer Law (s 18 and ss 20 to 22 with the ss 236, 237 and 243 remedies). The international content (CISG and UPICC) is quiz-only; restitution, injunctions and equitable damages, the Yerkey or Garcia special wives' equity, and the ACL damages-measurement cases are noted as not examinable.
Study LAW2102 with Sia
Work through termination by agreement, termination for repudiation, consequences of and the rest of the unit with a tutor that knows it and quizzes you on the topics the assessments weight most heavily.
Start studying with Sia