The University of Hong Kong

Department of Law

Academic Year of 2019-2020

Examiner’s Report

[This report will be posted onto intranet immediately after the release of exam results]

Course code:
JDOC1001&2 Course title: Contract Law JD
Report prepared by: Mindy Chen-Wishart Date: 28 May 2020

All the questions were attempted by some students. The most popular questions were:
2, 4, 7 and 8.

Question 1: students did well to take each party in turn. Mordor’s case confused some
on the conflict between the statement and the document (issues = incorporation,
misrepresentation about the term). The discretion raises the relevance of the
Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance, which was missed by many. Nomnom raises the
two contract analysis in the Blackpool case. On Quentin, the issue of past consideration
was often missed, as was Ray’s situation raising revocation of unilateral offer and third
party revocation.

Question 2: Here, students need to make arguments but also counter-arguments and
substantiate with law. It is not enough to simply assert a position. There was a tendency
to go off into fraud, negligence and innocent misrepresentations when the obvious
cause of action for damafes is in the Misrepresentation Ordinance. The statements
should also be discussed, in the alternative, as collateral terms that were breached,
yielding a different set of remedies. Some picked up the relevance of s15(1) SOGO.

Question 3: In general insufficient attention to why the terms might not be conditions but
rather innominate terms, and then why it should or should not permit termination of the
contract. Some missed the frustration issue and the affirmation issue.

Question 4: This was reasonably well done but again missed some issues, eg intention
to create legal relations between J and O? was there consideration from J? mistaken
assumption re Max? the undue influence and non-commercial guarantees issue well
spotted but need detailed arguments, and not just assertions. If the contract is valid,
what remedies against O? eg injunction against dancing with another, against writing
the book. Account of profits?

Question 5: The danger here was of students setting out a lot of law without actually
addressing the question asked. CECO was well spotted but many missed the relevance
of Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance and SOGO; also the relevance of the term v
representation distinction and of incorporation of unsigned documents to the question.

Question 6: Here, what should eb avoided is simply describing the law. Again, the need
to answer the precise question asked was sometimes ignored. In particular, should
decreasing pacts be enforced? If so, how? There was a surprising lack of knowledge of
the details of the latest case on the subject MWB v Rock.

Question 7: A very popular question and most did pretty well on this. Although, most
stuck to damages; some discussed specific performance, most ignored termination and
agreed remedies. Again answer the question- what other considerations…affect the
remedy awarded for breach?
Question 8: Also popular but again there was a tendency to describe the law rather than
consider more deeply what the question was driving at. Namely, whether the difference
in remedies available for frustration and mistake are warranted, and what remedial
flexibility might demand over and above LARCO.