Mastering Law Problem Questions
Problem questions in law aren't just about knowing the law—they're about reading smart, thinking critically, and structuring your answer with precision. Whether you're tackling tort, contract, or land, the method stays the same: identify, separate, and apply. Here's how to elevate your legal problem-solving game to first-class level.
Understanding the Problem Question
The first time you read a problem question, you are doing much more than absorbing information—you are preparing to deconstruct it. It is essential to identify the parties involved and focus on the interactions between them. Structure your analysis with party-specific headings such as “Martha v Smith” to keep your issues clearly delineated. List the sequence of events for each pair of individuals involved. Pay close attention to every single detail in the question. These details are not there arbitrarily - they are often placed to trigger legal discussion. For example, a statement like, “It was reposted by 30,000 users,” is vital in a defamation question and opens the door to discussion of secondary publication liability. Overlooking this kind of fact would mean missing an entire line of analysis.
It may be helpful to read the question a second time to fully understand the various issues, and not miss anything!
Separate your Key Issues
A powerful way to plan your answer is by separating each “case” or interaction between individuals. Rather than listing all the events in one long chain, isolate each legal relationship and trace its events independently. This allows you to break down complex scenarios into manageable segments.
For instance, in a scenario involving Mike and Amy, you might map their exchange as follows: at 8am, Mike sends a message offering to sell his phone for $100; at 9am, Amy replies asking if he would take $90 instead; at 10am, Mike accepts this by text; Amy reads the message at 11pm. This progression raises issues such as whether a counter-offer extinguished the original offer, whether acceptance was validly communicated, and whether a binding contract was formed.
Planning in this structured way helps prevent confusion and ensures that overlapping issues between parties are clearly handled. It also allows you to spot legal ambiguities- areas where the facts are unclear or open to interpretation- and flag them early for discussion in your analysis.
Using Case Law
Strong legal answers use case law precisely. Simply naming a case isn’t enough—you must explain the legal rule it establishes and how it applies to the facts.
State the ratio decidendi without including case facts. For instance, “learner drivers are held to the standard of competent drivers” draws on Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, without retelling the case.
Then apply the rule. Compare the facts directly. In a defamation claim, for example, alleging “Goalkeeper Dylan Williams accepted a £10,000 bribe” invites analogy with Grobbelaar v NGN [2002] UKHL 40, where similar accusations were made. Citing a specific paragraph from the judgment adds strength.
Do not ignore key details. If the statement was reposted by 30,000 users, that opens the door to discussing secondary liability—an issue too often missed.
Dealing with Ambiguities
Problem questions often contain unclear or ambiguous facts. These are not mistakes—they are there to test your analysis. Point out the ambiguity, explain the different ways it could be understood, and decide which is more likely in court.
Courts often use rules to help. They may go with the ordinary meaning of words, or interpret unclear contract terms against the person who wrote them. In some cases, courts may look at what Parliament said when making a law, as allowed in Pepper v Hart [1993].
When making your judgment, think about what courts have done before (precedent), what makes sense in practice, and what is fair.
Using IRAC
To bring all this together, use the IRAC method—Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. This framework ensures clarity and analytical rigour in every paragraph.
Begin with the Issue: identify the claimant and defendant, and state the legal question. If necessary, explain locus standi, or the claimant’s right to bring the action. For example, you might say, “Martha has suffered a broken leg and seeks damages. She may have a claim against Smith, a learner driver, and Aaron, an ambulance driver, in negligence.”
Next, state the Rule. This paragraph should be purely legal. For instance, “The standard of care required from learner drivers is that of a competent driver,” as established in Nettleship v Weston.
Then move to Application, where you match or distinguish the facts of your case with those from precedent. This is where your legal reasoning shines. You might write, “Nettleship applies here, as Smith is a learner driver. Therefore, she will be held to the standard of a competent driver. Her failure to check her mirrors before turning may amount to a breach of this duty.”
Conclusion
Finally, conclude with a reasoned conclusion. Summarise your view based on the rule and its application. “Smith will likely be found to have breached the duty of care and be liable in negligence.”
Throughout your answer, maintain analytical focus. Avoid excessive description. Always explain why a legal rule applies or does not apply in the specific context of the facts given.
