Exam (elaborations)
AQA A-Level Examiners Report for Paper 3A 2023
- Institution
- AQA
Examiners report for 2023 contract law exam aqa a level
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
A-LEVELLAW
7162/3A Paper 3A - Contract
Report on the Examination
7162/3A
June 2023
Version: 1.0
,Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2023 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
, REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL LAW – 7162/3A – JUNE 2023
Introduction
Despite the difficulties arising from events over recent years, there were encouraging signs in
student answers of continuing progress in study and learning of the law of contract in A-Level Law.
As always, quality of responses across the range of questions remained variable. However, there
was strong evidence in the higher value, extended answer questions, in particular, of improvement
in developing explanation, analysis and application of relevant rules of law.
Even so, it is perhaps worth repeating some of the general comments made in the Report on the
2022 Examination:
• when dealing with scenario-based questions, students should try to focus on the specific rules
of law which must be explained, analysed and applied to suggest a credible solution or
alternative solutions. It is rarely necessary to canvass the whole range of rules on formation of
contract, rather than some particular aspect of those rules. Students often failed to recognise
this in answering Questions 08, 10 and 11.
• where the instruction supplies the specific focus, as in Questions 07 and 08 for example,
students should observe it and avoid using up valuable time in establishing what they have
expressly been told to assume or what is clear by necessary implication (for which, in either
case, no credit will be available). For example, in Question 08, students were instructed to
focus on the agreement aspect of formation of contract, removing the requirement to discuss
consideration and intent to create legal relations. Yet many students did spend valuable time
writing about the latter elements. Conversely, in Question 11, many students failed to respond
to the clear evidence in the facts of the scenario that Lewis and Karol had agreed on what
each was to provide in return for the agreement of the other, thus eliminating the need for any
significant discussion of offer and acceptance (agreement) in formation.
• a little more precision in use of terminology might help to avoid some confusion and error. For
example, rescission is not a universal expression for termination of a contract by an innocent
party who has been the victim of a breach of contract. It is an equitable remedy which may be
awarded at the discretion of a judge where, say, there has been a misrepresentation. Its effect
will be to treat the contract as void from the outset, so that it is as if the contract had never
been made. By contrast, at common law the innocent victim of a ‘fundamental’ (or
‘repudiatory’) breach of contract will be able to ‘treat the contract as at an end’ (‘elect’ to do so)
and will also be able to sue for damages. The effect of that election by the innocent party will
be that the contract terminates from the time of communication of the election. Until that time,
all rights and obligations remain enforceable.
• whilst students generally demonstrated a strong understanding of statutory remedies for
breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 terms, including their sequencing, they appeared to be
less well-informed about common law and equitable remedies. It is worth remembering that,
though vindication of rights in itself may be an aim pursued, and worth pursuing, by claimants,
the main concern of both claimant and defendant is likely to be about the practical outcome,
that is, about the remedies eventually awarded where the claimant is successful.
Consequently, unless a scenario-based question on substantive law is framed in such a way
that discussion of remedies is not required, students should try to draw conclusions about
liability which include consideration of the appropriate remedy or remedies. In relation to
damages, perhaps the most common remedy that will be sought, students should understand
the general approach to compensation for breach adopted by the law of contract, be able to
3 of 19
, REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL LAW – 7162/3A – JUNE 2023
distinguish between expectation loss and reliance loss, and have a basic understanding of
how, for example, expectation loss might be determined (for example, by comparison between
the contract price and the market price for goods or services). Students may also be expected
to consider the issue of remoteness of damage at a relatively basic level.
Additionally, it is perhaps worth drawing attention specifically to the provisions of the Law
Reform (Frustrated Contracts Act) 1943 which determine the possible consequences of a
finding that a contract has been frustrated. These provisions exclude the application of
common law remedies such as damages and direct the manner in which the losses may be
distributed between the parties, given that neither party is to blame for the fact that the
contract has been discharged without full performance. Students rarely demonstrate a full
understanding of the operation of these provisions, though there has been some evidence of
improvement in 2022 and 2023.
Question 01
The correct answer was option C:
‘The CRA imposes a term requiring performance of the service with absolute care and skill.’
This question proved difficult for a significant number of students, though the majority chose the
correct option. Option C was the false statement, and so the required choice, because the
standard prescribed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s49 for performance of a service is one of
reasonable care and skill, not absolute care and skill.
The incorrect option chosen most frequently was option A, ‘The CRA creates a right to a price
reduction in some circumstances if the service does not comply with the requirements of the
contract.’ Yet this is a true statement in relation to breaches of both s49 and s52 (reasonable time
for performance). Options B and D were equally true, as clearly provided in the 2015 Act.
Question 02
The correct answer was option D:
‘Liability cannot be excluded or limited.’
This proved to be the more difficult of the two substantive law questions and by far the most
difficult of all of Questions 01-05, yet the true statement, and so the correct choice, is clearly
evident in the provisions of s31 of the statute, to which many students were to refer accurately in
dealing with later questions:
‘A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would
exclude or restrict the trader's liability arising under any of these provisions— (a) section 9 (goods
to be of satisfactory quality) …’
Consequently, the provisions of s31 also operate to render false all the other choices, which
allowed for exclusion or limitation of liability in some circumstances.
Question 03
The correct answer was option B:
4 of 19
, REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL LAW – 7162/3A – JUNE 2023
‘The claimant sues the defendant.’
This answer was chosen by all but a minute percentage of students, demonstrating an almost
universal understanding of a simple aspect of the operation of the process in a civil law action such
as in contract, and of the relevant terminology.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the choices made in response to this question was that the
minute proportion of students who made an incorrect choice actually did so, and in consequence
mistook the criminal trial process and terminology for the civil law counterpart.
Question 04
The correct answer was option D:
‘Partly in common law and partly in statute law.’
This answer was chosen by a very high proportion of students, who clearly recognised that most
general areas of law will be comprised of a mixture of common law and statute. In contract itself,
whilst many of the rules derive from common law (for example, rules on formation, incorporation
and nature of terms, remedies, vitiating factors, breach), many have been supplemented, modified
or replaced by statutory provisions (for example, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943,
the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Consumer
Rights Act 2015).
None of the options A-C could possibly have been the correct choice because they insisted,
variously, on locating the source entirely in the common law or in statute, or in neither.
Question 05
The correct answer was option C:
‘The statutory instrument has gone beyond the powers granted by Parliament to make laws.’
This option was chosen by well over half of the students, though over a third of all students in total
chose option A or option B. In simple terms, the expression ‘ultra vires’ translates as ‘beyond the
powers of’ and describes a restriction on the scope of action by Ministers and others to whom
Parliament delegates powers to promulgate statutory instruments and other forms of delegated
legislation. In doing so, they must remain within the confines of the powers granted to them. If they
exceed those powers, the delegated legislation may be challenged in an action for judicial review
and declared invalid.
All other option choices simply did not provide a correct explanation of the meaning of ‘ultra vires’.
Question 06
This question required students to explain two ways in which the law tries to achieve judicial
independence. Judicial independence is the idea that judges should be free to decide cases based
on the law and unconstrained by any improper influences (for instance, political or personal) that
could undermine the fairness and legitimacy of their decision. This requires that judges be clearly
5 of 19
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller finn8. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.66. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now