INTESAR S. - ESSAY SUBMISSION #3 ================================= Date: May 21, 2026 (12:41 PM EDT) Subject: Contracts Mode: Packet (contracts_004) Band: 4/6 - Adequate - at or near passing threshold RAW SCORING DATA ---------------- Raw Score: 94.2% Calibrated Score: 97.2% Confidence: 0.95 Component Scores (raw / display): Issue Spotting: 100.0% / 100.0% Fact Usage: 97.0% / 67.9% Rule Statement: 97.0% / 97.0% Analysis: 87.0% / 60.9% Conclusion: 94.0% / 94.0% Note: Display scores for facts/analysis are scaled down because the quality channel assessed application depth as "adequate" (not "deep"). This is why a 94% raw score still lands at band 4: the holistic quality assessment found the analysis competent but not deeply reasoned. Word Count: 773 Time Spent: 31 minutes (1,879 seconds) ================================================================================ STUDENT'S ESSAY ================================================================================ 1. Whether the contract between Finch and Vole's Vintage Vehicles is enforceable against Finch. Voidable contract by Minor: A contract with a minor is voidable by the minor so long as the minor disaffirms before reaching majority or within a reasonable time thereafter. Here, Mr. Finch turned 18, the majority in the jurisdiction, on May 1st. On may 15, while still 19, made his regular payment affirming the contractual agreement with Vole's Vintage Vehicles because the payment after turning 18 continues the contract, therefore, affirming the contract. Furthermore, On June 1st, the car's transmission failed, repair cost was substantial. On June 5th, Mr. Finch sent a signed letter to Vole stating " I am a minor and I am disaffirming our contract. I will return the car to you." Mr. Finch attempts to disaffirm the contract because it was entered into when he was a minor. However, due to the vehicle being a "necessity" and Mr. Finch affirming the contract after a reasonable time of turning 18, a court would likely, not permit Mr. Finch to disaffirm. Vole's refusal to accept the car or refund the Finch's payment is proper because Mr. Finch affirmed the contract and the vehicle was used as a necessity with no other alternatives. Necessity: A necessity contractual agreement with a minor can be enforced against a minor and not allow it to be disaffirmed so long as it is a necessity, for clothes, food, transportation. Here, Mr. Finch, a 17-year-old High school senior, needed a car for his 30-minute commute to his part-time job, which was his family's primary source of income. A minor, requiring a car for a commute to a job that is the primary source of income could be argued as a necessity. Furthermore, the lack of public transportation supports the necessity of the vehicle. In overall conclusion, the contractual agreement between Finch and Vole's Vintage Vehicles is enforceable against Finch because Mr. Finch affirmed the contract once he reached the age of majority, affirmed the contract by continuing payment, and lastly the vehicle was a necessity and necessity items must hold the minor liable to the contract entered into. 2. Whether there is an enforceable contract between Heron and Badger. An improper threat is present when it forces a party to act by threatening a release of private information that is not public knowledge. Duress, is enforcing a party to act unwillingly and left with no alternative means. Here, Badger approached Heron and stated " I know about your past tax problems. Sell me your property for my last offer, which is 20% below market value, or I will anonymously tip off the local business journal." Badge further emphasizes the devastating impact it would have on the cafe owner's reputation. Cafe owner felt there was no alternative means and in order to avoid embarrassment, she must sign the agreement under unfair duress. This statement is a clear improper threat because the threat left her feeling fear of being exposed and under duress signed the sale of contract from fear of public embarrassment. Therefore, the contract between heron and Badger is voidable by the cafe owner because the cafe owner was offered an unreasonable amount while being threatened to release embarrassing private information. The court will likely find that the contract is thus voidable by the Cafe owner. 3. Whether Sparrow Development can rescind its contract with Crane Manufacturing Co. Mutual mistake is when both parties are mistaken as to the contracts contents. A mutual mistake allows for the mistaken party to void the contractual agreement or reformation is permitted for the contract to reflect the parties contractual agreement correctly. Here, the final written contract identified the parcel by its official legal description and stated that it was being sold "as is" for a lump sum of $500,000, a price both parties believed relfected the fair market value for 10 acres. However, after the sale the Sparrow commissioned a new survey and discovered that the parcel was in fact only 6 acres. The smaller size makes it impossible for the planned usage of the multi-unit housing project. It can be argued that the outdated county survey map is a mistake of the Sparrow by not enforcing a new survey until after the contract was completed. Nevertheless, that argument would like not succeed for the survey was public record and legally acquired. Therefore, the large tract of land can be rescinded by the sparrow under Mutual mistake, because the Sparrow did not assume the risk by accepting the property "as is" and the Sparrow's failure to survey before and depending on legal public documents is appropriate. ================================================================================ SHEP FEEDBACK ================================================================================ OVERALL FEEDBACK: Your essay demonstrates a solid grasp of the relevant legal doctrines, and you consistently identify the core issues presented in the prompt. Your ability to state the rules accurately and apply them to the facts is sufficient for a passing score. You have a good foundation in contract law, and your writing is generally clear and well-organized. To move into the higher bands, focus on deepening your analysis by moving beyond conclusory statements. For each issue, try to break down the rule into its constituent elements and apply the facts to each element individually. Instead of stating that a condition is met, explain *why* the facts satisfy that specific legal requirement, and consider potential counterarguments. This more rigorous, element-by-element approach will demonstrate a higher level of legal reasoning and analytical depth. ISSUE-LEVEL FEEDBACK: 1. Incapacity / Minor's Contract (Finch v. Vole's) You correctly identified the issue of infancy and the general rule regarding disaffirmance. Your analysis of the "necessity" exception is a good start, but to reach a higher band, you should provide a more granular application of the facts. While you mention that a car for a commute could be a necessity, you should explicitly weigh the specific facts -- such as the availability of public transportation or the distance of the commute -- against the legal standard for "necessity" rather than stating it as a conclusion. Additionally, ensure your discussion of affirmation clearly distinguishes between the legal effect of payments made while a minor versus those made after reaching the age of majority. 2. Duress (Heron v. Badger) You successfully identified the core issue of duress and provided a functional definition. Your analysis effectively links the threat of exposing private information to the cafe owner's state of mind. To strengthen this, you should more explicitly address the "no reasonable alternative" element. Instead of simply stating the owner felt there was no alternative, analyze whether the threat was truly coercive under the law or if the owner had other legal or practical avenues to protect her reputation. Deepening this analysis will demonstrate a more sophisticated understanding of the threshold for economic or personal duress. 3. Mutual Mistake (Sparrow v. Crane) You correctly identified the doctrine of mutual mistake and the potential for rescission. Your rule statement is clear, but your analysis of the "as is" clause is somewhat conclusory. To improve, you should explicitly analyze whether the "as is" clause constitutes an assumption of risk by the buyer. Rather than asserting that the buyer did not assume the risk, walk through the factors courts use to determine if a party bears the risk of a mistake, such as whether the party was aware at the time of contracting that they had limited knowledge regarding the acreage. A more balanced discussion of the seller's perspective would also bolster your analysis. STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT: Level: Good IRAC Separation: Strong -- consistent use of headers and paragraph breaks. Organization by Call: Strong -- clearly organized by the three calls. Conclusion Quality: Adequate -- conclusions occasionally repeat reasoning rather than synthesizing into a final legal determination. SHEP EYES (structural coaching): You have a great handle on the structural basics. Your use of headers and distinct paragraphs makes your analysis very easy to follow. One area to sharpen is how you transition from your analysis to your conclusion. Instead of just restating your points, use your conclusion to tie the legal rule directly to the outcome. For example, in your duress section, you could write: "Because Badger's threat to expose Heron's private tax history left her with no reasonable alternative to avoid reputational ruin, the contract is voidable for economic duress." This is much stronger than simply saying the contract is voidable because she was threatened. Keep this focus on synthesis, and your conclusions will carry much more weight. ================================================================================ PROGRESSION TRACKER ================================================================================ #1 May 14 Real Property (BYOP Upload) Band 3 860 words (pasted) #2 May 19 Business Associations (Packet) Band 4 581 words 30 min #3 May 21 Contracts (Packet) Band 4 773 words 31 min Trend: Improved from Band 3 to Band 4 and holding. Issue spotting is now perfect (100%). Rule statements are strong (97%). The persistent gap is analysis depth -- she states correct conclusions but does not walk through the elements. Every feedback report flags the same pattern: break the rule into sub-elements and apply facts to each one individually.