Instructor view

Faculty pedagogy notes. Not intended for student access.

Final Exam

Each final in this course is all essay, four hours, taken in the LMS during the exam window. The format does not change between fall and spring. The coverage and the weight do.

Format and weight

Coverage

Fall covers Modules I, II, III, IV (Foundations; Mutual Assent; Consideration; Defenses). Spring covers Modules V, VI, VII (Interpretation; Performance & Breach; Money Damages). The spring exam does not retest fall doctrine, but the doctrine builds; you cannot do remedies without a working grip on formation.

The counseling prompt

Every final includes at least one prompt that asks you to counsel a client, not just analyze a case. The counseling prompt is where doctrine meets judgment: you state the rule, name the client's actual interest, and recommend the next move in plain language. The counseling rubric below scores that move on its own axes.

What the final exam tests

The essays do not retread MCQ doctrine. They target the higher-Bloom moves that a multiple-choice item cannot ask: evaluation under doctrinal pressure, synthesis across modules, and judgment in counsel to a real client.

Fall (Contracts I)

  • Classify a transaction by its governing legal source (common law, R2d, UCC Article 2) and sequence the analysis a litigator would brief: governing law, formation, consideration, defenses.
  • Analyze whether parties formed a contract under the objective theory of assent, including offer certainty under R2d § 33 and acceptance under the Mirror Image Rule or UCC § 2-207.
  • Evaluate whether a promise rests on bargained-for consideration, and apply promissory estoppel (R2d § 90) or material benefit (R2d § 86) where consideration fails. Reach the Evaluate move on whether reliance damages cap recovery.
  • Apply the formation-defense cascade (Statute of Frauds, mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, unconscionability, incapacity) to decide whether a putative contract is void, voidable, or unenforceable.
  • Counsel a client at the formation stage on whether to enter a deal, name the doctrinal uncertainty in plain language, and recommend a next move.

Spring (Contracts II)

  • Interpret ambiguous language by sequencing intrinsic evidence, the canons of construction, extrinsic evidence under UCC § 1-303, and the Parol Evidence Rule.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of a sale-of-goods warranty disclaimer or remedy limitation under UCC §§ 2-316 and 2-719.
  • Analyze whether a duty has matured, been suspended, or been discharged through conditions, performance, breach, repudiation, excuse (R2d §§ 261-265, UCC § 2-615), or modification.
  • Calculate expectation damages under R2d § 347 and select among expectation, reliance, and restitution measures, then test recoverability against foreseeability, certainty, and mitigation limits.
  • Evaluate the availability of specific performance, restitution to the breaching party, and liquidated damages, including penalty-rule scrutiny under R2d § 356.
  • Counsel a client at the dispute stage on whether to perform, breach, demand assurances, settle, or sue.

What to expect from a counseling prompt

At least one prompt on every final hands you a client, not a case. The prompt names a person who has a decision to make and asks for your advice. The counseling prompt rewards doctrinal accuracy first (the rule, the section, the test), then practical judgment (cost, reputational consequence, what the client actually needs next), then candor (where the doctrine is unsettled and what that risk means for the client). A confidently wrong call scores below a candid hedge that points to the missing fact. The fall prompt sits at the formation stage, before a deal closes; the spring prompt sits at the dispute stage, once performance has broken down or is about to. Write to the client. The grader can tell when an answer was drafted as a memo to no one.

Sample prompt topics

These are the topic shapes of the four prompts on each final. The full fact patterns stay sealed until exam day.

Term Topic Modules Bloom level Counseling
Fall Synthesis issue-spotter (governing law to formation to consideration to defenses, in sequence) I-IV Analyze
Fall Counseling at formation: misrepresentation, unconscionability, and a rescission waiver IV Apply → Evaluate Yes
Fall Consideration and its substitutes: bargained-for exchange, promissory estoppel, reliance-damages cap III Evaluate
Fall Defenses cascade: infancy, fraudulent misrepresentation, merger-clause survival, unconscionability IV Apply
Spring Interpretation and parol evidence: ambiguity, canons, UCC § 1-303 ranking, integration V Analyze → Evaluate
Spring Warranty disclaimer and remedy limitation under UCC §§ 2-316 and 2-719 V Evaluate
Spring Performance, breach, repudiation, excuse, modification (with assurances under R2d § 251) VI Analyze
Spring Counseling at the dispute stage: remedy selection, penalty-rule scrutiny of a liquidated-damages clause VII Evaluate → Create Yes

Exam windows

Published rubric

Every essay scores on the same 5 dimensions on a 1-to-4 scale. A dimension at 4 reflects work at the top of the class on that axis; a dimension at 1 reflects a substantive miss the grader cannot give credit for.

Dimension What it asks What it rewards
Issue Does the student identify the question of law the prompt is actually asking? Name the legal question the prompt is actually asking. A correct answer to the wrong question scores at the floor.
Rule Does the student state the legal authority that controls the issue? State the controlling authority with section or case, and the operative language in your own words.
Analysis Does the student apply the rule to the facts, with both sides argued? Apply the rule to the facts in the prompt, with both sides argued. Conclusion before application is the most common loss of points.
Conclusion Does the student answer the question presented? Answer the question. A hedge that names no winner cannot earn full credit even when the analysis is clean.
Quality Does the writing carry the legal argument cleanly? Sentence-level writing that carries the argument: paragraphing that tracks IRAC, citation that locates the rule, no throat-clearing.

Counseling-prompt rubric

The counseling prompt is scored on five criteria on a 0-to-4 scale. Two criteria are affective: they ask whether you exercised judgment, not just whether you stated the law.

Criterion What it asks
Doctrinal accuracy The doctrine you invoke is the right one and stated correctly.
Client-centered framing The advice is shaped to the client in the prompt, not a generic memo to no one.
Practical judgment (affective) The recommendation reflects a lawyer's judgment about cost, risk, and what the client actually needs next.
Candor about uncertainty (affective) Uncertainty is named where it lives. A confident wrong call scores below a candid hedge that points to the missing fact.
Written quality The counseling text is in plain English and would not embarrass a sender to a real client.

Prepare with the right materials

The method, the model essays, and the IRAC color code all live on Exam Prep. The four annotated student essays answer the 2022 prompt and show what the rubric scores in practice.

Instructor view

Faculty pedagogy notes. Not intended for student access.