Structured notes, exam attack plans, AI essay marking, and past papers built specifically for UOL External LLB students. Not a generic law site — every word is written for your marking scheme.
Students in 30+ countries
Pakistan · Nigeria · Sri Lanka · UK and beyond
Good morning, Sarah 👋
116 days until October. Keep going.
116
days
34%
Overall
3
In progress
8
Not started
Continue studying
Contract Law
8/13 topics
Equity & Trusts
5/13 topics
AI Tutor
Past Papers
Exam Prep
Flashcards
64 / 100
Merit · 2:121
LLB Modules
140+
Topics Covered
~30s
AI Essay Feedback
88
Past Paper Questions
Sound familiar?
You've covered every chapter. But in the exam you freeze — because textbooks don't tell you how the UOL examiner wants you to structure an answer.
You spend hours on cases your lecturer mentioned. The UOL marker wants specific cases, cited in a specific way. Without an attack plan, you're guessing.
UOL gives zero essay feedback. You practice on past papers, guess whether your structure is right, and the first person to properly mark your work is the examiner — in the actual exam.
The fix
Attack plans, AI essay marking, past papers, module notes, flashcards, an AI tutor — everything written and calibrated specifically for the UOL External mark scheme. Not a generic law platform. Yours.
See it for yourself — it's freeNot a generic summary. Real UOL Equity & Trusts content — the exact frameworks, feedback, and answers that help students jump from Pass to Merit to Distinction.
Exam question — Equity & Trusts
"Critically analyse the requirements for certainty of objects in discretionary trusts, with reference to the development of the case law."
Identify the issue
A trust for objects that cannot be identified with certainty is void. For discretionary trusts, the question is not just whether a list can be drawn up — it is whether any given person can be said to be or not be a beneficiary. Begin by classifying the trust type: fixed or discretionary.
State the rule — and its development
Old rule (fixed trusts)
Complete list test — all beneficiaries must be identifiable. IRC v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955]
Revolution — House of Lords
"Is or is not" test — can it be said of any given person whether they are or are not a member of the class? McPhail v Doulton [1971] — Lord Wilberforce rejected the complete list test for discretionary trusts as too restrictive.
Analyse the three judicial approaches (Re Baden No 2)
Critical evaluation — is the test workable?
Conclusion
Want the full attack plans, AI marking, and tutor access?
Sign up free — no credit card needed. Upgrade only when you're ready.
What's covered
LA3002
LA1010
LA3021
LA3028
Not a generic law site. Built from the ground up for UOL External students.
Concise, exam-focused notes written for UOL External students. Every case, every principle — nothing irrelevant.
Step-by-step frameworks for answering any exam question. Know exactly what to write and in what order.
Private video walkthroughs of complex topics and past paper questions — like having a personal tutor.
Submit your essay and get detailed feedback in seconds — score, strengths, missing cases, and how to improve.
Every UOL past paper question organised by module, year, and zone. With model answers and AI marking.
Case law and legal principles in an interactive flip-card format. Filter by module or topic for focused revision.
This is exactly what students see inside the platform. Not a generic summary — a structured attack plan written for the UOL examiner.
Amy advertises her car for sale at £8,000. Bob emails saying he will buy it for £7,500. Amy replies "I might accept £7,750." Bob then emails "I accept your offer of £7,750." Amy has already sold the car to Carl.
Advise Bob.
Issues to spot
Attack Plan
How to structure your answer — step by step
Is Amy's advertisement an offer or an invitation to treat?
Advertisements for the sale of goods are almost always an invitation to treat, not an offer. The advertiser is inviting the public to make offers — they cannot be forced into a contract with every person who responds.
Amy's £8,000 advert = invitation to treat. It creates no legal obligation.
Bob's email for £7,500 — counter-offer, not acceptance
Bob responds with a different price. This is a counter-offer — it proposes new terms and automatically destroys the original offer. There is no longer an offer for £8,000 on the table.
Counter-offer = rejection of original offer. Bob cannot later accept the £8,000 price.
Amy's reply — "I might accept £7,750" — is this a valid offer?
The word "might" is critical. A valid offer requires a definite promise to be bound. Tentative language like "I might" or "I would consider" does not constitute an offer — it is at most an invitation to negotiate.
Amy's reply is probably not an offer — it's an invitation to make a further offer.
Bob's purported acceptance — is there a valid offer to accept?
Conclusion + what Bob can argue + remedies
Distinction tip
Most students spot Hyde v Wrench but miss that Amy's "I might accept" is almost certainly not a valid offer either — making Bob's acceptance doubly ineffective. Raising both points and analysing Harvey v Facey is what separates Merit from Distinction answers.
Every module. Every topic. Every exam question type.
Attack plans for 21 modules — problem questions, essays, and critical analysis.
Thousands of UOL External LLB students study without a campus, without a seminar leader, and without access to UK law tutors. This platform was built to solve that — specifically.
Generic law revision sites teach you the subject. This platform teaches you what examiners at the University of London actually reward. Every note, every attack plan, and every AI response is calibrated to the External LLB marking criteria — not a domestic university seminar.
UOL External students don't have seminar groups, walk-in office hours, or a classmate down the hall. This platform fills every gap — structured notes that replace lectures, teacher recordings that replace seminars, and an AI tutor available at 2am in any time zone.
Knowing the law is not the same as passing the exam. This platform forces exam-mode thinking at every step: timed question formats, AI marking against the UOL grade scale, and feedback that tells you exactly which cases you missed and why you lost marks.
The difference
Less than a single textbook. Cancel anytime.
or £79/year (save 34%)
Most complete plan
Pay once, keep forever
All plans include a free account. Upgrade only when you're ready.
Feedback from UOL External LLB students during our early access period.
“I failed my first attempt studying from textbooks alone. After using the attack plans and AI tutor I passed with a Merit. The AI feedback on my essays was more specific than anything a paid tutor ever told me.”
Farida A.
🇳🇬 Nigeria · Tort Law
“I was losing marks on structure without knowing why. After running three past paper essays through the AI, I finally understood exactly what UOL examiners want. No other site does this — they just explain the law.”
Omar K.
🇵🇰 Pakistan · Contract Law
“Living in Colombo with no access to UK law tutors, this platform was a lifeline. The notes read like they were written by someone who has actually sat the UOL exam — not a generic law textbook rehashed.”
Lakshmi P.
🇱🇰 Sri Lanka · Criminal Law
“The exam attack plans are genuinely unlike anything else I found. They are structured around how the question is marked, not how the topic is taught. Would have been five stars with more flashcard content.”
James T.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom · Public Law
“I work full-time and study part-time. The AI tutor is there at 2am when I need it, and the answers are always specific to UOL — not generic law school content. That distinction matters more than most people realise.”
Zainab M.
🇦🇪 UAE · Equity & Trusts
“What makes this different is that it does not treat you like you are at a UK university. It understands you are studying independently, in a different time zone, with different challenges. That empathy is built into every part of the platform.”
David N.
🇳🇬 Nigeria · Human Rights
"The attack plans changed everything for me. I stopped panicking in exams and started actually structuring my answers. Got a 68 in Equity."
Amara O.
Nigeria · LA3002 Equity & Trusts
"The AI marking told me I was missing Rimer LJ analysis in my constructive trust essay. I added it, and my next attempt felt completely different."
Hassan R.
Pakistan · LA3002 & LA3021
"As someone studying in Sri Lanka with no access to UK law tutors, this platform is genuinely the only resource that explains the UOL marking scheme properly."
Priya K.
Sri Lanka · LA3005 Jurisprudence
Join students from Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and beyond who are using LawRevise to prepare properly.
Create your free accountNo credit card required. Cancel anytime.