Your contract law exam presents a scenario: A company contracts with a builder to construct a warehouse for £2 million. Halfway through, the builder claims costs are higher than expected and demands additional £500,000. The company agrees verbally. Later, they refuse to pay extra.
You have 45 minutes to advise on whether the company must pay the additional amount.
Many students approach this by writing everything they know about consideration. They discuss Stilk v Myrick. They discuss Williams v Roffey Bros. They analyze whether the builder provided consideration. They write for 30 minutes and produce 1,200 words of analysis.
They score 52%.
A better student reads the scenario, identifies the central issue (does existing duty performance constitute consideration?), states the relevant law, applies it to these specific facts, and concludes whether the company likely must pay. They write for 20 minutes and produce 600 words of focused analysis.
They score 71%.
The difference isn't knowledge. Both students know the cases. The difference is technique. One student writes about the law generally. The other systematically applies law to specific facts to reach a practical conclusion.
Problem question technique is how you convert legal knowledge into practical legal analysis. It's different from essay writing. It requires different skills. And it's one of the most important skills legal practice requires—because legal work is fundamentally about analyzing client situations (the "problem") and advising what happens next.
Let's examine exactly how to approach problem questions, how to structure your thinking, how to spot issues, and how to apply law systematically to reach justified conclusions about specific factual situations.
Problem Questions vs. Essays: The Crucial Distinction
Understanding what's different helps you adjust your approach.
Essays test understanding of doctrine:
Question: "Discuss parliamentary sovereignty. Is it still relevant to the modern UK constitution?"
You analyze the principle. You discuss cases. You engage with academic debate. You evaluate whether sovereignty has evolved.
Your essay demonstrates sophisticated understanding of constitutional principles.
Problem questions test application of law:
Question: "Your client is a student. Her university expelled her for alleged plagiarism based on similarity report from plagiarism-detection software showing 45% similarity. She claims she wrote the essay herself and the software gave false positives. Advise on her prospects of challenging the expulsion."
You identify legal issues (procedural fairness, natural justice, maybe administrative law principles). You apply law to facts. You conclude what's likely to happen if she challenges.
Your answer demonstrates whether you can advise a client on their actual situation.
The philosophical difference:
Essays say: "Here's what the law says about X."
Problem questions ask: "Given these facts, what does the law mean for my client?"
This requires different analytical approach.
What works for essays:
Comprehensive coverage of topic. Engaging with multiple perspectives. Critical evaluation. Sophisticated discussion.
What works for problem questions:
Focused analysis of relevant issues. Clear application of law to facts. Practical conclusion. Efficiency (don't discuss irrelevant tangents).
Common mistake students make:
They approach problem questions like essays. They discuss everything they know about the topic. They forget the problem has specific facts.
This produces low marks because problem question marking rewards focused analysis of relevant issues, not comprehensive discussion of all related law.
The IRAC Framework: Your Analytical Structure
IRAC is the standard structure for problem question answers: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
Understanding each component is essential.
I: Issue
What it is: The legal question you're answering.
Not just the topic ("consideration"), but the specific issue ("Does existing duty performance constitute consideration given these facts?").
How to identify:
Look at the facts. What legal question do they raise?
Example: Builder did existing work. Company demanded extra payment. The issue is whether that existing work performance is good consideration.
Example issues:
"Is there sufficient consideration for the company's promise to pay additional amount?"
"Did the university follow procedural fairness before expelling the student?"
"Does the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer?"
Poor issue identification:
Just stating the topic: "The issue is consideration" or "The issue is duty of care."
(Too vague. What specific question about consideration or duty of care?)
Better issue identification:
"The issue is whether the builder, by performing an existing contractual obligation (completing the warehouse construction), provided consideration for the company's promise to pay an additional £500,000."
(Specific to these facts.)
How it affects your answer:
Well-identified issue directs your entire analysis. Poor issue identification means you discuss irrelevant material.
R: Rule
What it is: The legal principle(s) applicable to the issue.
How to identify:
What cases, statutes, or doctrines establish the law you need to apply?
For consideration issue: Stilk v Myrick (existing duty isn't consideration) and Williams v Roffey Bros (practical benefit might be consideration).
How to state it:
State rule clearly and accurately. Don't just cite cases—explain what they stand for.
Poor rule statement: "There's a case Stilk v Myrick about consideration."
(You've cited something but haven't explained what it means.)
Better rule statement: "Under Stilk v Myrick, performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration for a new promise, as it provides no additional benefit beyond what was already owed."
(You've explained the principle.)
Important for problem questions:
Sometimes multiple rules apply and you must address each. Sometimes one rule clearly governs. Identify accurately.
Example: "The law on consideration is complex. Stilk establishes that existing duty performance isn't consideration. However, Williams v Roffey Bros established an exception: if existing duty performance provides practical benefit, it may constitute consideration. The distinction turns on whether the party promising additional payment receives genuine benefit."
(You've stated the rule clearly, including the tension between cases.)
A: Application
What it is: Applying the rule to the specific facts.
This is where most students struggle. They state the rule, then restate the facts, but don't actually apply one to the other.
Poor application:
"The rule is that existing duty performance isn't good consideration. In this case, the builder was already obligated to build the warehouse. He performed that obligation."
(You've stated the rule and the facts. You haven't applied one to the other. What's the legal consequence?)
Better application:
"Applying the rule: The builder was contractually obligated to build the warehouse. He performed that obligation. Under Stilk v Myrick, mere performance of an existing duty provides no new consideration. However, Williams v Roffey Bros suggests that if the company received practical benefit—such as certainty of timely completion or avoiding the costs and delays of finding replacement contractors—consideration might exist. In this case, the company did benefit: the builder's continued commitment avoided the practical risk of project abandonment or substantial delay. This practical benefit distinguishes the situation from Stilk, suggesting consideration may have existed."
(You've applied the rules to these facts and explained the legal consequences.)
The application step requires:
Identifying relevant facts from the scenario.
Explaining how the rule applies to those facts.
Considering how the rule might apply differently given variations in facts.
C: Conclusion
What it is: Your answer to the issue.
Not just "it depends" or "it's unclear." A reasoned conclusion based on your analysis.
Poor conclusion:
"It's not clear whether the company must pay the extra amount."
(You've avoided taking a position.)
Better conclusion:
"The company likely must pay the additional £500,000 because the builder's continued performance, while technically existing duty performance, provided practical benefit sufficient to constitute consideration under Williams v Roffey Bros. The practical risks of project abandonment or delay (which would have affected the company significantly) distinguish this case from Stilk v Myrick."
(You've reached a position supported by your analysis.)
Effective conclusion includes:
Your answer to the issue. What's the likely legal outcome?
Brief explanation for your conclusion (referencing your analysis).
Any qualifications or caveats (what could change this conclusion?).
Importantly for problem questions:
Your conclusion should be practical. If advising a client: "Your position is likely defensible, but there's some risk because..." or "You likely must pay, but we could argue..."
Not: "The law is unclear."
Issue Spotting: The Critical First Step
Most problem question difficulty comes from issue spotting—identifying what legal issues the facts raise.
Why issue spotting matters:
A scenario might raise 3 major issues and 5 minor issues. Students who spot all 8 and discuss equally score lower than students who spot the 3 major ones and focus there.
Examiners want you to identify relevant issues, not every tangentially related issue.
How to spot issues systematically:
Read the facts carefully (first time):
Read without analyzing. Just understand what happened.
Example: Builder contracts to build warehouse. Halfway through, demands more money. Company agrees verbally. Later refuses to pay.
Identify the dispute/problem:
What's the central disagreement?
"The company promised to pay extra, now claims they don't have to."
Ask what legal consequences follow:
What legal question does this situation raise?
"Must the company pay if the promise to pay extra is unenforceable?"
"What makes a promise enforceable?"
(This leads you to consideration.)
Trace through the facts identifying each potential issue:
For contract problem:
Formation: Was there a contract for the original work? (Probably yes, but might be issue in some scenarios.)
Variation: Is the promise to pay extra a valid variation of the original contract? (Main issue here.)
For variation: Is there consideration for the variation? (This is the central issue.)
Possibly: Was the promise made under duress? (If builder threatened to abandon work otherwise.)
Possibly: Is there promissory estoppel? (If company relied on the promise.)
Prioritize:
Which issues are central? Which are peripheral?
Central: Consideration for the variation.
Peripheral: Whether the original contract was properly formed (probably not disputed).
For your answer:
Address the central issue thoroughly. Address peripheral issues if you have time/space, but don't let them distract from main analysis.
Example issue spotting in criminal law scenario:
Scenario: A enters B's house at night. A takes B's television and leaves. A had key to house (B gave it to A for storage). A claims B owed A money from old debt and was taking TV as payment.
Issues to spot:
Theft: Did A steal the TV? (Central issue)
Actus reus of theft: Did A appropriate the property? (Needed to analyze theft)
Mens rea of theft: Did A intend to permanently deprive B? (Needed for theft)
Defense—claim of right: Can A claim right to the property as debt payment? (Important defense)
Breaking and entering: Did A break or enter? (Probably not—A had key. Likely not an issue.)
Burglary: Is this burglary or just theft? (Depends on whether there was unlawful entry.)
Central issues: theft elements and claim of right defense.
Peripheral: Whether this constitutes burglary (probably doesn't, so less important).
Structuring Your Answer: From IRAC to Organized Essay
IRAC is the framework. Now structure your actual answer.
For a single issue:
Issue: [State the issue clearly]
Rule: [State applicable law, cases, statutes]
Application: [Apply rule to these facts]
Conclusion: [Your answer]
For multiple issues:
Issue 1: [First issue]
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Issue 2: [Second issue]
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Overall conclusion: [Synthesize if needed]
Example problem answer structure (contract scenario):
Issue: Does the builder's performance of existing contractual obligations provide good consideration for the company's promise to pay an additional £500,000?
Rule: Under Stilk v Myrick, performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration for a new promise, as the party performs only what they're already legally obligated to do. However, Williams v Roffey Bros established an important exception: if the party providing existing performance generates practical benefit or detriment distinct from pure performance of existing duty, consideration may exist.
Application: The builder was contractually obligated to complete the warehouse construction. By continuing to work and completing the project, the builder performed existing obligations. On Stilk's analysis, this is not good consideration—the company received only what it already had right to expect.
However, Williams v Roffey Bros applies differently here. The company faced practical risks: the builder's financial distress created risk of project abandonment or substantial delay. By promising additional payment, the company secured the builder's continued commitment, avoiding these practical consequences. The company obtained practical benefit—certainty of timely completion and avoidance of costs associated with finding replacement contractors.
This practical benefit distinguishes the case from Stilk, suggesting consideration existed for the company's promise.
Conclusion: The company likely must pay the additional £500,000 because the builder's continued performance provided practical benefit constituting consideration under Williams v Roffey Bros. The company's exposure to project disruption risk, which the additional payment mitigated, provides legal foundation for enforcing the promise.
This structure:
Identifies the issue clearly.
States applicable law including relevant tension between cases.
Applies law systematically to facts.
Reaches supported conclusion.
All in organized, readable format.
Common Problem Question Mistakes
Mistake 1: Discussing every related issue equally
Scenario mentions contract, but also mentions that builder has financial difficulties.
Student discusses contract law, but also discusses insolvency, creditor rights, employment law (builder has employees)—everything remotely related.
Result: Unfocused answer covering everything but analyzing nothing deeply.
Fix: Identify the central issue (contract consideration). Address it thoroughly. Mention other issues only if they actually affect the central question.
Mistake 2: Not applying law to facts
Student states: "The rule is that existing duty performance isn't good consideration."
Then: "In this case, the builder performed existing duties."
Then: "Therefore, there's no consideration."
(Student has applied the rule to facts, but mechanically, without considering nuance or exceptions.)
Better approach: "The rule is that existing duty performance isn't good consideration. However, if the party receives practical benefit, an exception applies. Here, the company faced practical risks of project disruption. The additional payment secured commitment avoiding these risks. This practical benefit constitutes consideration."
Mistake 3: Treating the problem like an essay
Instead of focused issue-by-issue analysis, student writes an essay discussing consideration doctrine generally, academic perspectives on consideration, policy considerations, etc.
Result: Rambling answer that discusses law but doesn't analyze the problem.
Fix: Focus ruthlessly on the problem. What law applies to these facts? Apply it. Don't discuss law that isn't relevant.
Mistake 4: Not reaching a conclusion
Student analyzes thoroughly but then concludes: "It could go either way" or "The law is unclear."
Result: You've avoided taking a position.
Fix: Reach a position. "The company likely must pay because..." or "The company likely doesn't have to pay because..."
You might note uncertainty ("though there's some risk because..."), but take a position based on your analysis.
Mistake 5: Failing to prioritize
Problem raises 5 potential issues. You have 45 minutes.
Student spends 10 minutes on each issue equally, producing superficial analysis of everything.
Better student spends 25 minutes on the 2 main issues, producing deep analysis, and 5 minutes on peripheral issues.
Fix: Identify central issues. Give them most of your time and space. Address peripheral issues briefly.
Mistake 6: Not identifying the practical question
You're analyzing abstract legal issues but forgetting you're advising a client.
The practical question is: "Must the company pay? What should they do?"
Your analysis should lead to practical answer.
Fix: Frame analysis around the practical client question.
Mistake 7: Overstating certainty
You conclude: "The company absolutely must pay" based on case law that suggests they probably must pay.
Result: Overstated position that looks unrealistic.
Fix: Use appropriate language. "The company likely must pay..." or "The company probably must pay..." acknowledges that law involves judgment calls.
How Problem Question Technique Affects Marks
Problem questions typically earn lower marks than essays, which concerns students. This is because problem questions are harder—they require issue spotting and focused analysis rather than comprehensive discussion.
Mark distribution:
Issue spotting: 20-30% of marks. Did you identify relevant issues?
Rule identification: 20-30% of marks. Do you know applicable law?
Application: 30-40% of marks. Can you apply law to facts? This is worth most because it's hardest.
Conclusion: 10-20% of marks. Did you reach justified conclusion?
The application section drives marks most.
Example:
Student A:
Issues: Identified main issue ✓
Rule: Correct ✓
Application: Mechanical. "The rule applies. Here are the facts. Therefore..." ✗ (weak application)
Conclusion: Reached position ✓
Mark: 58%
Student B:
Issues: Identified main issue ✓
Rule: Correct and nuanced ✓
Application: Thoughtful. Applied rule considering its exceptions and limits, analyzed how facts fit within rule's scope, acknowledged counterarguments ✓ (strong application)
Conclusion: Reached position ✓
Mark: 72%
The difference: 14 marks from stronger application.
Problem Questions in Practice: Why This Matters for Your Career
Learning problem question technique teaches you how lawyers actually work.
In practice:
Clients come to you with problems, not abstract questions.
"My builder is demanding more money. Must I pay?"
Not: "Discuss the rule of consideration in contract law."
You must:
Identify legal issues (what law governs this situation?)
Research law (what do cases/statutes say?)
Apply law to facts (what do they mean for this client?)
Reach practical conclusion (what should client do?)
This is exactly problem question technique.
The skill transfers directly.
Students who master problem questions in law school find legal practice easier. They know how to analyze client situations systematically.
Students who never practiced problem questions find practice initially challenging—they must learn to apply law to real facts when they're already qualified, not when they're learning.
The Bottom Line
Problem questions are fundamentally about applying law to facts to reach practical conclusions about specific situations.
This is different from essays, which discuss doctrine and engage critically.
Mastering problem question technique requires:
Issue identification: What legal questions do the facts raise? Identify central issues and prioritize.
Rule statement: What law applies? State it clearly and accurately.
Careful application: How does the rule apply to these specific facts? Consider exceptions, limitations, counterarguments.
Justified conclusion: What's your answer? Support it with your analysis.
Systematic structure: Use IRAC to organize thinking and answer.
Practical focus: Remember you're advising a client, not discussing law generally.
Start with your next problem question. Read carefully. Identify the central issue. State relevant law. Apply it thoughtfully to these specific facts. Reach a supported conclusion.
Your analysis will be more focused. Your answer will be more persuasive. Your marks will reflect that improvement.
And you'll develop the core skill of legal practice: converting complex factual situations and legal principles into practical advice about what clients should do.
That's what lawyers do.
Master problem question technique, and you're learning how to practice law.
