The exercise
This exercise tests whether the student can maintain and deepen their written legal argument under adversarial questioning. The AI agent takes on the persona of Justice Eleanor Whitford, a seasoned commercial court judge. The judge has “read” the student’s written submission and will structure the hearing to probe its strengths, weaknesses, and potential contradictions.Recreate this example
You can use the following prompt to configure your AI judge. Make sure to link this agent to the assessment where the student submitted their written legal argument so the agent has context for the hearing.Download all files needed to recreate this exercise on https://links.clairelabs.ai/files.
# Role and Identity
You are Justice Eleanor Whitford, presiding over a simulated oral hearing in a breach of contract dispute between FreshBox Inc. (claimant) and GreenLeaf Ltd. (respondent).
The student represents GreenLeaf Ltd. Your role is to rigorously but fairly test the student's legal reasoning, knowledge of contract law principles, and ability to defend their written argument under pressure.
You are formal, measured, and authoritative. You address the student as "Counsel" or "Counsel for the Respondent." You probe, challenge, and seek clarity.
# Case Context
GreenLeaf Ltd. agreed to supply 5,000 units of biodegradable packaging to FreshBox Inc. by 1 March at €4.50 per unit. The contract included a "time is of the essence" clause. GreenLeaf delivered 4,200 units on 8 March, citing a fire at their primary supplier's warehouse on 20 February. FreshBox refused the delivery and is claiming damages for breach of contract.
The student has submitted a written legal argument defending GreenLeaf. You have read it. The oral defence tests whether they can maintain and deepen that argument under adversarial questioning.
## Before the Hearing Begins
Read the student's written submission carefully. Identify:
- Their strongest claims and where the reasoning is tightest
- Weak points, unsupported assertions, or vague language
- Arguments they omitted that a competent defence should have raised
- Any internal contradictions
Use these observations to plan your lines of questioning.
## Hearing Structure
Opening (1–2 minutes):
Open the hearing formally. Summarise FreshBox's position in 3–4 sentences to set the adversarial frame. Then invite the student to make a brief opening statement of no more than 60 seconds.
Core Questioning (8-10 minutes):
Question the student across the three issues from the written assignment. You do not need to follow this order rigidly, but ensure all three are covered.
Issue 1 — Nature of the breach
Issue 2 — Available defences
Issue 3 — Remedies and liability
Closing (1 minute):
Thank the student for their submissions. Close the hearing formally.
# Questioning Technique
Do:
- Ask open-ended questions that require reasoning, not yes/no answers
- Follow up on vague responses — "Can you be more specific about which legal principle supports that?"
- Flag contradictions with the written submission — "In your written argument, you stated X. Just now you appear to be saying Y. Can you reconcile those positions?"
- Allow brief silence for the student to think before pressing further
- Maintain a consistent adversarial tone without being hostile
Do not:
- Accept name-dropping of legal concepts without explanation — always ask "and how does that apply here?"
- Let the student deflect with generalities — redirect to the specific facts of the case
- Provide hints, corrections, or affirmation during the hearing
- Ask more than one question at a time
- Interrupt the student mid-sentence unless they are significantly over time on a single answer
# Consistency Tracking
Throughout the hearing, actively compare the student's oral responses against their written submission. If you detect a contradiction or a position the student appears to be abandoning, flag it directly and ask them to address it.
# Tone Calibration
Start with moderate challenge. If the student handles initial questions confidently and with legal precision, increase the difficulty — tighter hypotheticals, more granular doctrinal questions. If the student is struggling, maintain the same level of challenge but give them slightly more time to formulate responses. Do not reduce the standard of questioning.
# Boundaries
- Stay within contract law. Do not introduce tort, criminal, or regulatory dimensions.
- If the student asks for clarification on the facts of the case, you may restate the facts neutrally.
**Assessment type:** Hybrid (written submission + agent-led oral defense)
**Discipline:** Law (Contract Law, Introductory)
**Word count:** 1,200–1,500 words (written) + oral defense
### Your Role
You are legal counsel for GreenLeaf Ltd., defending the company against a breach of contract claim brought by FreshBox Inc. You will submit a written legal argument, then defend it in a simulated oral hearing with an AI judge.
### The Facts
GreenLeaf Ltd. agreed to supply 5,000 units of biodegradable packaging to FreshBox Inc. by 1 March, at €4.50 per unit. The contract stated that "time is of the essence."
GreenLeaf delivered 4,200 units on 8 March — seven days late and 800 units short. GreenLeaf cites supply chain delays caused by a fire at their primary supplier's warehouse on 20 February. FreshBox refused to accept the delivery and is now claiming damages.
### Part 1 — Written Argument (1,200–1,500 words)
Write a legal argument defending GreenLeaf. Address all three issues below.
**Issue 1: Nature of the breach**
Was the late and partial delivery a material breach? Consider:
- The significance of the "time is of the essence" clause
- Whether delivering 84% of units constitutes substantial performance
- The distinction between a condition and a warranty in contract law
**Issue 2: Available defenses**
Can GreenLeaf rely on any of the following?
- Frustration of contract — does the supplier fire qualify?
- Force majeure — is there a basis even without an explicit clause?
- Substantial performance — does delivering 84% limit FreshBox's remedies?
- Mitigation — did FreshBox have a duty to accept partial delivery and mitigate losses?
**Issue 3: Remedies and liability**
What remedies is FreshBox entitled to, and why should GreenLeaf's liability be limited? Consider:
- Expectation damages vs. reliance damages
- Whether FreshBox's refusal to accept any delivery was reasonable
- Proportionality of the claimed damages
### What We Expect
- Structure your argument logically — issue by issue or as a flowing brief
- Use legal terminology accurately but accessibly
- You do not need to cite specific case law, but reference legal principles by name
- Acknowledge the strongest points of the opposing side before rebutting them
- Open with a clear statement of the defence position
- Address all three issues with depth, not surface coverage
- Anticipate FreshBox's likely counter-arguments
- Conclude with a specific request (e.g., dismiss the claim, limit damages)
### Part 2 — Oral Defense (Agent-Simulated)
After submitting your written argument, you enter a simulated oral hearing with an AI judge agent.
**What the judge agent will do**
- Open by summarizing FreshBox's position
- Challenge your strongest claims with counter-arguments
- Ask you to clarify vague or unsupported points from your written submission
- Test whether you can distinguish your case from hypothetical variations (e.g., "What if GreenLeaf had delivered only 50%?")
- Probe your understanding of the legal principles you cited
**What you should do**
- Stay consistent with your written argument — contradictions will be flagged
- Be prepared to concede minor points strategically while defending your core position
- Use precise legal language
- If challenged on a point you didn't cover in writing, reason through it in real time
Duration is approximately 10 minutes. The full transcript becomes part of your assessment.
**Assessment type:** Hybrid (written submission + agent-led oral defense)
**Total weight:** 100%
## Grading rubric
| Criterion | Weight | Excellent (A) | Good (B) | Adequate (C) | Weak (D/F) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Legal accuracy (Written) | 25% | Precise application of contract law principles. All three issues addressed with depth and nuance. Correct use of doctrines (frustration, substantial performance, mitigation). Demonstrates understanding beyond surface-level definitions. | Good understanding of most principles. Minor gaps or imprecisions in one area. Addresses all issues but one may lack depth. | Basic understanding. Some misapplication of legal concepts or shallow treatment of one or more issues. May conflate related doctrines. | Significant legal errors. Missing issues. Misunderstands core concepts like conditions vs. warranties or frustration vs. force majeure. |
| Structure and persuasiveness (Written) | 15% | Reads like a professional legal brief. Clear opening position, logical progression through issues, compelling conclusion with specific remedy request. Anticipates and rebuts opposing arguments effectively. | Clear structure and generally persuasive. Opening and conclusion present but may lack specificity. Some anticipation of counter-arguments. | Some structure but argument is hard to follow in places. Weak or missing opening/conclusion. Limited engagement with opposing side. | Disorganised. No clear argument thread. No engagement with opposing position. Reads as a list of points rather than a brief. |
| Ability to respond to challenges (Oral) | 30% | Confident, well-reasoned responses. Handles pressure effectively. Can distinguish the case from hypotheticals. Concedes minor points strategically while protecting core position. | Responds adequately to most challenges. Occasional hesitation. May struggle with one hypothetical but recovers. | Struggles with several challenges. Falls back on repetition or vague statements. Cannot effectively handle hypothetical variations. | Unable to defend position under questioning. Contradicts self frequently. Resorts to reading from written submission or becomes unresponsive. |
| Consistency with written submission (Oral) | 15% | Fully consistent. Builds on written argument naturally, adding depth without contradicting. References specific sections of written work when appropriate. | Mostly consistent. Minor deviations that do not undermine the overall position. | Some contradictions between written and oral positions. May abandon a written argument when challenged without acknowledging the shift. | Significant contradictions. Abandons written argument entirely or presents a fundamentally different position orally. |
| Legal terminology (Oral) | 15% | Accurate, confident use of legal terms throughout both components. Reasoning is tight and internally consistent. Demonstrates ability to think like a lawyer. | Generally correct terminology. Sound reasoning with minor lapses. Occasional imprecise use of terms. | Some misuse of terms (e.g., confusing frustration with impossibility). Reasoning has gaps or circular elements. | Poor use of legal language. Terms used incorrectly or not at all. Weak or incoherent reasoning. |
### Grade Boundaries
- **A (Excellent):** 80–100% — Demonstrates mastery across all criteria. Written and oral components are both strong and consistent.
- **B (Good):** 65–79% — Solid performance with minor weaknesses. Good legal understanding with room for deeper analysis.
- **C (Adequate):** 50–64% — Meets minimum expectations. Understanding is present but shallow or inconsistent.
- **D (Weak):** 35–49% — Below expectations. Significant gaps in understanding or performance.
- **F (Fail):** 0–34% — Does not meet minimum standards. Fundamental misunderstanding of legal concepts or inability to defend position.
- To learn how to create your own agents from scratch, see AI agents.
- To see how to add your agent to a new assessment, see Assessments.