How to Use the ILAC Method for a Business Law Problem Question in Malaysia
Quick answer: The ILAC method for business law problem questions has four steps: identify the legal Issue, state the Law (statute first, then cases), Apply that law to each relevant fact, and reach a Conclusion that advises the client. In Malaysia, the Law step must start with the Contracts Act 1950, because English cases only support it.
If you have just opened the LAW30405 / LAW30205 Introduction to Business Law brief at Taylor’s, you have met a WhatsApp sale, a haggling buyer, a logo nobody asked for and a 1,500-word limit. The scenario looks simple. The marks are not. Most of them go to students who can show why a message is, or is not, an offer.
Many students ask for “IRAC” when their brief says “ILAC”. Do not worry about the label. The structure is almost identical, and this guide shows you how to use it well.
Short on time before your deadline? Get one-to-one guidance from a Malaysian law specialist on issue spotting, case selection and Harvard referencing. Ask a law expert.
What a business law problem question really tests
A problem question does not test whether you can recite contract law. It tests whether you can choose the right rule for each fact and argue both ways before advising.
The August 2026 LAW30405 brief is a good example. It carries 30% of the module and asks you to advise two people. One part concerns offer and acceptance. The other concerns consideration. The marking rubric splits the marks evenly:
| Criterion | Weight | What the top band (13–15) expects |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of principles and research | 15% | Accurate principles in your own words; more than 12 references across more than four source types |
| Application to the scenario | 15% | Clear analysis that integrates the law with the facts |
Read that first row again. A student who explains the law perfectly but cites five cases from lecture slides is capped in the “Developing” band. That surprises people every semester. You can see the full requirements on the LAW30405 Introduction to Business Law question page.
ILAC vs IRAC: is there any difference?
ILAC and IRAC are the same four-step method for legal problem questions. ILAC stands for Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion; IRAC uses “Rule” instead of “Law”. Malaysian lecturers often prefer ILAC because it reminds you to cite statute, such as the Contracts Act 1950, before cases.
| Step | ILAC | IRAC | What to write |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Issue | Issue | One precise legal question per party |
| 2 | Law | Rule | Section of the Act, then supporting cases |
| 3 | Application | Application | Fact-by-fact reasoning, including the counter-argument |
| 4 | Conclusion | Conclusion | Advice to the named client, with a remedy |
Some briefs add a fifth element, “advise the client”. Treat it as the end of your Conclusion, not a separate essay.
How to apply the ILAC method to a business law problem, step by step
Use these steps for each part of the question separately. Mixing both parties into one long answer is the quickest way to lose the marker.
- Underline every message, payment and date in the scenario. Each one is a possible legal event.
- Write one Issue sentence per party, naming the people and the legal concept.
- List the sections you need from the Contracts Act 1950 before you look for cases.
- Pick two or three cases per rule: one leading case and one that points the other way.
- Apply the law fact by fact, in the order the facts happened.
- Argue the opposing view in one short paragraph, then explain why you reject it.
- Conclude with clear advice and a practical next step, such as a refund or a written demand.
Issue: one sentence, not a paragraph
Weak: “The issue is about contract law.” Strong: “Whether Cathy’s Thursday message accepted a proposal that was still open, so that a contract was formed with Rumi.” The strong version tells the marker exactly what you will prove.
Law: statute first
For formation, the core provisions are section 2(a) and 2(b) on proposal and acceptance, section 7(a) on absolute acceptance, and sections 4(3), 5 and 6 on communication and revocation. For consideration, you need section 2(d), section 10 and section 26. Quote the key words briefly, then paraphrase. Long quotations add similarity without adding marks.
Application: where the marks actually are
This is the section where we see the most wasted words. Students restate the facts, then restate the law, and never connect them. Every application sentence should contain a fact and a legal label: “Because Cathy proposed a lower price and a new collection term, her reply was not absolute and unqualified under section 7(a).”
Conclusion: advise, do not summarise
End with what the client should do. “Cathy is unlikely to have a contract and should request a refund of her RM1,000” is advice. “In conclusion, offer and acceptance are important” is not.
Offer and acceptance: the traps in a WhatsApp sale
Group messages, private chats and “seen” ticks create three classic traps. Each one needs a case on both sides.
- Offer or invitation to treat? A message to a whole group inviting “anyone interested” to get in touch looks more like an invitation to treat. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 and Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 are the usual authorities.
- Counter-offer or request for information? A reply that changes price or terms kills the earlier offer (Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334). A genuine question does not (Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346). Wording such as “Would you consider…?” sits right on that line, so argue both.
- Does silence or a part payment equal acceptance? Silence is not acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869), and money sent with a fresh offer does not complete a contract on its own.
Watch the Malaysian twist on revocation. Under section 4(3), revocation is complete against the offeree only when it comes to his knowledge. If the seller quietly sold to someone else, that matters, but only if the earlier offer was still alive.
Consideration in Malaysia is not the same as in England
This is the part that catches students who revise from UK websites. Under English law, past consideration is generally no consideration (Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669). Malaysia is different.
Section 2(d) of the Contracts Act 1950 recognises an act the promisee “has done”, provided it was done at the desire of the promisor. If there was no real request, look at section 26(b). It makes a promise enforceable where it compensates a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. The purse illustration to section 26 is worth quoting.
So a student who writes “past consideration is not good consideration, so Kero loses” has applied the wrong country’s law. In our experience, that single error costs more marks on this module than any referencing mistake.
Want to see the method applied? Our LAW30405 business law assignment sample shows a full ILAC model extract, for reference only. Need personal feedback instead? Ask our law specialist to review your draft.
Where students lose marks
| Common mistake | Why it happens | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Only English cases, no Malaysian statute | Free revision notes are UK-based | Open every Law step with a Contracts Act 1950 section |
| Treating the group message as an offer | A price and a deadline feel like an offer | Ask whether the sender intended to be bound by the first reply |
| One-sided application | Fear that arguing both ways looks unsure | Give the counter-argument, then reject it with reasons |
| Fewer than 9 references | Relying on slides only | Mix statute, cases, textbook, journal and a reputable website |
| Case names not italicised or cited in full at first mention | Rushing at the end | Full citation first time, short name afterwards |
| Going far over 1,650 words | Copying long definitions | Paraphrase, and spend words on Application |
Mark-maximising checklist before you submit
- One Issue sentence for each party
- Contracts Act 1950 sections cited before cases
- At least one argument and one counter-argument in each Application
- Clear advice and remedy in each Conclusion
- More than 12 references, more than four types, all in Harvard style
- Word count within 1,350–1,650 words; Times New Roman 12, 1.5 spacing
- Similarity and AI-detection scores checked against the 30% limits in the brief
- Gen AI use declared in the appendix if you used it for brainstorming or drafting
Using AI and expert help without risking misconduct
Taylor’s allows Gen AI for limited purposes such as brainstorming and early drafts, but not for the final submission or the core analysis. If you use it, you must attach the prompts and outputs. That is a real burden, and many students simply avoid the tools.
Expert support works best the same way: as guidance. A specialist can check whether you have spotted the right issues, suggest authorities and explain a model answer. The final analysis should be yours. If you want structured help with a law module more broadly, our law assignment help for Malaysian students covers contract, company and commercial law, and our service warranty explains what we do and do not promise.
Before you start writing
Do not open with a definition of a contract. Open with the issue for your first client, and keep the first 100 words for that. Then spend more than half of each part on Application, because that is where the second 15% sits.
Deadline close and still unsure about counter-offers or section 26(b)? Share your brief with our law specialist for guidance, a model answer and a structure check. Your details stay confidential. Get law expert guidance.
This article is academic guidance, not legal advice. You remain responsible for your own submission and for following your institution’s integrity rules.
About the expert
John Collins is a law assignment expert at Malaysia Assignment Help. His profile lists a Master’s in Law from the University of Malaya, 10 years in the field (8 with Malaysia Assignment Help), 2,966 completed orders, and strengths in criminal law, corporate law, media law and international law.
Frequently asked questions
Is ILAC the same as IRAC for my business law assignment?
Yes. Both follow Issue, Law or Rule, Application and Conclusion. If your brief says ILAC, use those headings exactly, because markers look for them. The only practical difference is emphasis: ILAC reminds you to cite the statute, such as the Contracts Act 1950, as well as cases.
How many cases should I cite in a 1,500-word ILAC answer?
Aim for two or three cases per legal rule, which usually means eight to ten cases in total. For LAW30405, the top band also expects more than 12 references across more than four types, so add the Act, a textbook, a journal article and a reputable website.
Can I use English cases in a Malaysian contract law answer?
Yes, as persuasive authority, provided you start with the Contracts Act 1950. English cases such as Hyde v Wrench explain principles that Malaysian courts follow. Be careful with consideration, though, because section 26(b) changes the English past consideration rule.
Is a WhatsApp group message an offer or an invitation to treat?
It depends on wording and intention. A message to many people inviting anyone interested to make contact is usually an invitation to treat, because the sender does not intend to be bound by every reply. A private message with a firm price to one buyer is more likely to be a proposal.
Is past consideration valid in Malaysia?
It can be. Section 2(d) of the Contracts Act 1950 covers an act the promisee “has done” at the promisor’s desire. Even without a request, section 26(b) makes a later promise to compensate someone who voluntarily did something for the promisor enforceable.
Can someone check my ILAC draft before I submit?
Yes. A law specialist can review your structure, issue spotting and references and explain where marks are lost. You should still write and submit your own analysis, and declare any Gen AI use as your brief requires.
References
Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136). Laws of Malaysia. Putrajaya: Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869.
Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552.
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669.
Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346.
