GDL Contract Law - Paper 1

Critically evaluate the doctrine of consideration in English contract law. To what extent does the rule in Stilk v Myrick (1809) remain good law following the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)? Consider whether the practical benefit test has effectively undermined the traditional requirement of consideration, and discuss proposals for reform. Reference relevant case law including Foakes v Beer (1884) and MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising (2018). Assess whether promissory estoppel provides an adequate alternative where consideration is absent.

Amara agrees to sell her vintage car to Ben for £15,000. The contract is in writing and states delivery will occur on 1 March. On 15 February, Amara tells Ben she has received a higher offer from Clara of £20,000 and intends to sell to Clara instead. Ben is distressed and immediately purchases a replacement car from a dealer for £18,000. On 28 February, Amara changes her mind and tells Ben she will honour the original agreement after all, but Ben refuses to accept delivery. Meanwhile, Ben discovers that the dealer who sold him the replacement car had misrepresented its mileage. Advise Ben on his contractual rights and remedies against both Amara and the dealer.

Assess the effectiveness of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in controlling exclusion and limitation clauses. To what extent do these statutes achieve a fair balance between freedom of contract and consumer protection? Consider the reasonableness test and transparency requirement, and evaluate the framework in the context of modern digital contracts and standard form agreements.

Deepa runs a catering business. She contracts with EventCo Ltd to cater a corporate event on 20 April for £5,000. The contract states: "EventCo Ltd shall not be liable for any loss or damage howsoever caused, including consequential losses." On 10 April, EventCo changes the venue from a ground-floor hall to a rooftop terrace. Deepa objects but EventCo relies on a variation clause. On the day, defective temporary kitchen facilities provided by EventCo cause a fire destroying £3,000 of Deepa's equipment. Deepa also loses a separate £8,000 contract because her equipment is destroyed. Advise Deepa on the exclusion clause, the venue change, and her recoverable damages.

Faisal, aged 17, enters a two-year gym membership with GymFit Ltd at £50/month, including personal training and nutritional supplements. After six months, Faisal turns 18 and continues using the gym without comment. Two months later, he wishes to cancel, claiming the contract is non-binding as he was a minor. GymFit argues Faisal ratified by continuing use after turning 18. Faisal also purchased £500 of supplements on credit from GymFit, which he consumed but has not paid for. Advise Faisal on his position regarding both the membership and the supplements, considering the Minors' Contracts Act 1987.