CA Foundation Jan 2027 law case study: questions and answers
CA Foundation law case study questions are the fact-based 7-mark questions in Paper 2 (Business Laws): a short story, then "decide" or "advise" with reference to one Act. ICAI's own answers follow one shape every time: the provision with its section, the facts applied to it ("In the instant case…"), and a conclusion for each sub-question. Below are five real cases from ICAI's 2026 papers, shortened, with the sections and conclusions ICAI wrote.
The Foundation exams are on 3, 5, 7 and 9 January 2027, and Paper 2 is a 3-hour descriptive paper (ICAI schedule, PDF (opens in a new tab)). Cases are the biggest block of Law marks, and ICAI's examiners keep flagging them.
What a CA Foundation law case study is
ICAI doesn't print the words "case study" on the paper. Students use the term for questions that give facts with named people, dates and amounts, then ask what the law says. The requirement line names the Act, for example "Analysing the applicable provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, answer the following questions" or "Analyzing the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 advise the directors."
Most cases split into two or three asks, (i) to (iii), each needing its own conclusion.
How many marks come from case studies
By our count, 8 of the 18 parts in ICAI's May 2026 Business Laws paper were cases of 7 marks each: 56 of the 120 printed marks. You answer 100 (Question 1 plus any four of Questions 2 to 6).
| Question | Case in May 2026 (7 marks each) | Act |
|---|---|---|
| 1(a) | Used car sold through a broker | Contract |
| 1(b) | Section 8 company, dividend and winding up | Companies |
| 2(a) | Customised sofa on approval | Sale of Goods |
| 3(a) | A partner's assignee refused the books; a partner settling a suit (4 + 3 marks) | Partnership |
| 3(b) | A 51% Central Government private company seeking dormant status | Companies |
| 4(a) | Four guarantors bound in different sums | Contract |
| 5(a) | Tractor and seed planters bought on the dealer's advice | Sale of Goods |
| 6(a) | Validity of unusual instruments | Negotiable Instruments |
Source: ICAI's Foundation suggested answers, May 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), Paper 2. ICAI's September 2026 Paper 2 (PDF) (opens in a new tab) also opened with a Contract case and a Companies case; the full slot map is in our CA Foundation Jan 2027 Law mock test post.
Question 1 is compulsory and opened with two cases in all three 2026 papers (January, May and September). So you will write at least two 7-mark cases however you pick the rest.
CA Foundation law case study answer format
Write every case in three paragraphs: provision, application, conclusion. It is the layout of ICAI's case answers below.
| Part | What to write | ICAI's wording to copy |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Provision | The rule in your words, with the Act and section | "According to the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872…" |
| 2. Application | Each fact matched to the rule | "In the instant case…" / "In the present case…" |
| 3. Conclusion | A direct answer to the exact ask | "Therefore…", "Hence, the contention… is not justified" |
Three habits that keep marks:
- One conclusion per sub-question. A case with (i), (ii) and (iii) has three conclusions.
- Name the section in the first line of the provision paragraph.
- Show calculations as a working note under the application. Paper 2's instructions say "Working notes should form part of the answers."
Case 1: the admission that lapsed (Contract, January 2026)
Facts, shortened: A school told parents that a provisionally selected child would be confirmed only if the fees were paid online and the documents were submitted physically by 18 April 2025. Vishal paid on 16 April but did not submit the documents, as he was out of town. On 19 April the school cancelled the admission without telling him and refunded the fees. Was the cancellation valid?
ICAI's answer:
- Provision: Under Section 6 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a proposal can be revoked otherwise than by communication: by lapse of time, and by the acceptor's failure to fulfil a condition precedent to acceptance (Section 6(3)).
- Application: Paying the fees and submitting the documents by 18 April were both conditions precedent. Vishal met only one.
- Conclusion: The school's cancellation without communication was valid. Being out of town was no excuse.
Where students lost marks: ICAI's examiners wrote that most "were unable to answer the question correctly with reference to the provisions of Section 6", and many answered "in a generalized manner" (January 2026 suggested answers, PDF (opens in a new tab)).
Case 2: the counter-offer through a broker (Contract, May 2026)
Facts, shortened: Rakesh told his broker Vikash he would sell his car for ₹12 lakh, with ₹5 lakh as advance. A buyer, Ravi, told Vikash he would pay only ₹10 lakh and sent ₹5 lakh, which Vikash passed on to Rakesh. At the final meeting Ravi offered ₹5 lakh more; Rakesh refused. Asks: (i) is there a valid contract, (ii) Rakesh's remedies, (iii) what if Vikash never told Ravi the ₹12 lakh price.
ICAI's answer, in outline:
- (i) Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified; a modified acceptance is a counter-offer (Section 7), which rejects the original offer (Hyde v. Wrench). Consent means agreeing on the same thing in the same sense (Section 13). Ravi's ₹10 lakh was a counter-offer, there was no meeting of minds on price, so no binding contract was formed.
- (ii) Rakesh need not deliver at ₹10 lakh, should refund the ₹5 lakh, can sell to someone else, and can hold Vikash liable, since an agent must follow the principal's directions (Section 211) and the principal need not recognise acts beyond the agent's authority (Section 228).
- (iii) Vikash's failure to pass on the price, even unintentionally, is misrepresentation (Section 18): Ravi can recover ₹5 lakh, and Rakesh can claim from Vikash.
The examiners said the majority missed "counter-offer and the absence of consensus ad idem" (May 2026 suggested answers, PDF (opens in a new tab)). Lesson: name the legal idea the facts point to before you write anything else.
Case 3: the sofa kept past the approval period (Sale of Goods, May 2026)
Facts, shortened: Romi ordered a customised sofa for ₹45,000 on the condition that she could reject it within 20 days of delivery and installation if the size or colour was wrong. She let it be installed, paid the cartage and an extra amount for carrying it up the stairs, and a month later asked to return it or pay ₹25,000.
ICAI's answer, in outline:
- Goods sold by description must match it (Section 15) and, where the buyer relies on the seller's skill, be fit for purpose (Section 16(1)). But this was a sale on approval with a fixed period (Section 24): her right to reject lasted only 20 days.
- Acceptance is deemed when the buyer does an act inconsistent with the seller's ownership or keeps the goods beyond the time without rejecting them (Section 42). Installation, payments and keeping the sofa were all acceptance.
- Conclusion: property passed to Romi, so she cannot refuse to pay ₹45,000.
ICAI printed an "Alternate Answer" for part (ii), reaching the same conclusion through Section 24 instead of Section 42. The examiners noted that "only a few were able to correctly apply Section 42", and many missed Sections 55, 56 and 61 in part (iii). Lesson: there can be more than one right route, but each needs a section applied to the facts.
Case 4: four guarantors and a lost security (Contract, May 2026)
The case-with-a-calculation type. Facts, shortened: a bank lent ₹70 lakh to Mr. Bhusan against a mortgaged gold bar worth ₹5 lakh and guarantees from Suresh (₹30 lakh), Suyash (₹20 lakh), Sumati (₹10 lakh) and Suman (₹10 lakh). The gold bar was lost in a burglary involving bank staff, and the bank owed Bhusan ₹5 lakh for a gold idol it had bought from him. The bank asked the guarantors to pay the deficit equally.
ICAI's working:
| Step | Rule | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Loan | ₹70 lakh | |
| Less: security lost by the creditor | Section 141: surety discharged to that extent | ₹5 lakh |
| Less: set-off for the idol | Surety gets the debtor's set-off | ₹5 lakh |
| Liability to share | ₹60 lakh | |
| Equal share | Section 146: co-sureties contribute equally | ₹15 lakh each |
| Capped at their limits | Section 147: equally, as far as each limit permits | Sumati ₹10 lakh, Suman ₹10 lakh |
| Balance ₹40 lakh, shared equally | Suresh ₹20 lakh, Suyash ₹20 lakh |
Conclusion: the bank's demand for equal contribution is not fully valid. Part (ii) asked what happens if the bank changes the loan terms without the guarantors' consent: under Section 133, every guarantor is discharged for transactions after the variance.
The examiners said many "failed to correctly compute the surety's liability after accounting for the value of the securities lost by the creditor". Lesson: write the working as a table or numbered steps, each step with its section.
Case 5: the sole member of an OPC (Companies, January 2026)
Facts, shortened: Prasad's One Person Company borrowed ₹75 lakh from an NBFC and couldn't repay; its assets fell short. Is Prasad personally liable (i) just because he is the only shareholder, (ii) if the NBFC proves the OPC was formed for fraud?
ICAI's answer: An OPC is a company with only one member (Section 2(62) of the Companies Act, 2013), a separate legal entity with limited liability. (i) No: creditors cannot reach the member's personal assets just because he is the sole shareholder. (ii) Yes: where a company is formed to defraud creditors, the corporate veil can be lifted and the member held personally liable.
The examiners said many could not explain that the OPC is a separate legal person and its member's liability is limited. Lesson: two asks can have opposite conclusions. Keep them apart.
Where to find more CA Foundation law case study questions
Practise from ICAI's own sources first, in this order:
- Past papers with suggested answers: January 2026 and May 2026 Paper 2 (linked above). Past attempts are on ICAI's Foundation suggested answers page (opens in a new tab) and our CA Foundation past papers page. Which older answers use law that has since changed is in CA Foundation suggested answers May 2026 PDF.
- RTP: the September 2026 Paper 2 RTP (PDF) (opens in a new tab) has a full questions section after its amendments part. ICAI's Jan 2027 notice says Paper 2 is the August 2024 study material (Reprint August 2025 onwards) plus the RTP for January 2027 (ICAI notice, PDF (opens in a new tab)).
- MTPs: ICAI's January 2027 Paper 2 MTPs are on Thursday 3 December (Series I) and Wednesday 16 December 2026 (Series II), 2 PM to 5 PM (ICAI notice of 21 October 2026, PDF (opens in a new tab)). Write them as full papers under exam time.
The full list of what ICAI's examiners flagged in Paper 2 is in ICAI examiner comments CA Foundation May 2026.
How to time a 7-mark case in the exam
About 12 minutes, by our arithmetic (180 minutes for 100 marks is about 1.8 minutes a mark): 2 to read and underline every date, amount and condition, 1 to note the section for each ask in the margin, and 9 to write. Use the 15-minute reading time from 1:45 PM to pick your four questions from Questions 2 to 6.
Practise cases in a full Business Laws paper
Reading ICAI's answers teaches the shape; writing under the clock fixes it. Our CA Foundation Business Laws mock tests are 3 full-syllabus papers, set at the real ICAI exam standard on the latest pattern by 15+ qualified CA faculty, with a fresh set of questions for every attempt and every amendment applicable for January 2027 tested.
You write by hand, scan and upload one PDF. Your checked copy comes back within 24 hours with the reason for every mark cut and the correct line to write, so you see where each case lost marks. When to write each mock before 3 January is in our CA Foundation Jan 2027 mock test plan.
Frequently asked questions
What is the format for CA Foundation law case study answers?
Three paragraphs: the provision with its section, the facts applied to it ("In the instant case…"), and a clear conclusion for each sub-question. This is the layout ICAI uses in its suggested answers.
How many marks are case studies in CA Foundation Business Laws?
By our count, 8 parts of 7 marks each in ICAI's May 2026 paper were cases: 56 of the 120 printed marks. Question 1, which is compulsory, opened with two cases.
Do I need to quote case laws like Hyde v. Wrench?
Sections matter most. In the five ICAI answers above, only one cites a case law (Hyde v. Wrench, for a counter-offer); the others rely on sections alone. A correct section, applied to the facts, is what the examiners ask for.
Where can I get CA Foundation law case study questions and answers PDF?
ICAI's suggested answers for January 2026 and May 2026 print every Paper 2 case with its answer (linked above), and its RTPs carry more. All are free from ICAI's own site.
Next step
Take ICAI's May 2026 Paper 2, write Questions 1(a) and 4(a) in 24 minutes, and check each against the three-part format above. Then move to full papers: our CA Foundation test series has CA mock tests for all four papers, and every level is on the CA test series home page.