2021 Contract Law Question 3 — LawShortcut Independent Model Answer
Michael swaps a Mill-EU-naire lottery ticket for Dwight's 5 flopcoins; the ticket then wins €1 million and the flopcoins are exposed as a fraudulent scheme. The question turns on the difference between the adequacy of consideration, which the law refuses to examine, and its sufficiency, which the flopcoins satisfied at the moment of the exchange.
Scenario summary
Michael and Dwight were friends. At lunch one day Michael brandished a screenshot of a Mill-EU-naire lottery ticket and announced loudly that his psychic had foretold a great fortune. He had bought the ticket on the strength of it, and when the numbers were drawn at the end of the week he would win €1 million.
Dwight scoffed: the chances, he said, were those of the moon crashing into the Earth, and Michael should put his money into something real. He wrote a 12-digit number on a napkin — his account holding 5 flopcoins, a new digital cryptocurrency, which would be worth €1 million by the end of the week.
Both men thought for a while. Michael then proposed: “Why don’t I sell my ticket to you for your 5 flopcoins?” Dwight was silent for a time, then said “Done!” Michael forwarded the screenshot; Dwight handed over the napkin. Each felt he had the better deal.
By the end of the week the position had reversed. The ticket did win €1 million. The flopcoins, meanwhile, turned out to be part of a fraudulent scheme, and were worth nothing. Michael now wants the winnings for himself, on the footing that the agreement was invalid because the flopcoins were worthless.
Candidates are asked to advise Michael as to his legal position under the law of contract.
This is a LawShortcut scenario summary written in our own words. For the exact examined wording, use the official King’s Inns paper linked above.
What this model answer covers
Issues and structure addressed in the full LawShortcut model answer:
- Issue 1 — Was there a binding contract of exchange?
- Issue 2 — Adequacy against sufficiency: does the worthlessness matter?
- Issue 3 — Any escape through mistake or misrepresentation?
- Overall advice to Michael
- Where the 25 marks live — 6 formation, 12 adequacy and sufficiency, 5 mistake and misrepresentation, 2 structure and conclusion
- Common ways to lose marks
- Authorities relied on
- The reusable answer structure
Read the complete LawShortcut model answer to this question — reading the question, issue spotting, the applicable law, application to the facts and conclusions — inside the King’s Inns Contract Law Model Answer Vault.
Part of the King’s Inns Contract Law Model Answer Vault — 30 independently authored model answers, 2020—2025.
All 2021 Contract Law answersContract Law Model Answer VaultStudy Contract law