Beijing and Shanghai Winter Schools (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

just want to advise of two winter schools for introduction to chinese legal system. the UNSW one is hosted at and taught by China University of Political Science and Law, in Beijing, whereas the USyd one is hosted at and taught by East China University of Politics and Law, in Shanghai. both are excellent law and political science unis.

the info is here:
Beijing Winter School
Shanghai Winter School (pdf)

the main difference is that the Shanghai one is longer, being 21 days compared to 11 for Beijing (thus it should cover the topics in more depth). the cost of accommodation is roughly the same (roughly $1400-1500). the UNSW can be credited to HECS (as a 8cp band 3 subject), whereas the USyd one is $2400 (which can be deferred through FEE-HELP). airfares and insurance are at own expense.

what do you think? is doing an introductory course on another legal system worth the expense of $2-3K?

edit: the Beijing one expects you to have completed your law compulsory subjects, whereas the Shanghai one expects you to have done third yr (for USyd ppl) or with permission from your home institution. damn, i doubt UNSW lawfac would let me.

 

[Frigid]

Why are you not reading Codelfa?

Hmmmmmmmm?

coz frigey wanna go on holiday

 

[MoonlightSonata]

coz frigey wanna go on holiday

Alrite then why aren't you reading Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon

 

[Frigid]

Courts attempt to resolve these issues by construing the terms in question according to the objective intentions of the parties - Codelfa

with respect, His Honour Mason J goes further than that,

"The true rule is that evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning..." etc

trying to stick this quote in my notes as an exception to parol evidence rule.

 

[Frigid]

that's coz you edited your darn post

well at least now i know to whom i shall ask my contrax questions

 

[Frigid]

back to topic. any thoughts/comments?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well that is the narrow approach to the parol evidence rule - that evidence of surrounding circumstances is only admissible to resolve ambiguity. However the approach has in recent years shifted towards a more lenient one.

See Mason in Codelfa - even when there is no ambiguity in the written contract, evidence of prior negotiations will be admissible to establish background facts, or the "objective framework" known to both parties – to look to the presumed intentions (tothe extent that it does not involve probing subjective intentions). Note however that though there is support for this view it has not yet been accepted by a HC majority.

Also remember, very important - PER only applies to contracts wholly in writing!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

There you go frigid. Ask Moonlight. He actually remembers contracts. In detail!

My teacher was obsessed with the PER at one stage. She said we would be the only ones to know "the true view" -- haha she actually said "you are the chosen ones!"

But yeh it is fresh in my head because my last moot involved an issue on parol evidence

 

[Frigid]

we had interesting discussions in class that PER is essentially a paradox.

you cannot say if something is 'wholly in writing' if there is extrinsic (eg oral) material that is part of the contract.

thus, PER really isn't necessary for contracts 'wholly in writing', because if they are wholly in writing then that is all.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

we had interesting discussions in class that PER is essentially a paradox.

you cannot say if something is 'wholly in writing' if there is extrinsic (eg oral) material that is part of the contract.

thus, PER really isn't necessary for contracts 'wholly in writing', because if they are wholly in writing then that is all.

The idea is you look at the evidence, then decide whether it is part of the contract -- if it is not, the parol evidence rule applies and that evidence cannot be used to construe the terms, etc

edit: on the broad approach

 

[Meldrum]

Hahaha: Justice-Communism-China

 

[Frigid]

Hahaha: Justice-Communism-China

geez man, grow up - before i run you over with a tank

 

[neo o]

geez man, grow up - before i run you over with a tank

I'm not sure whether it's worth it, bar the mini-exchange (and I'd imagine that the course would be too intense/compacted to give you a chance to sight-see or shang-girl-see while you're over there unless you extend your visit). There are posters up about one of these (I think that it's the Beijing one) in my law faculty, I hope that means that it's open to us down here too!

PS : I know that Sydney has a course in Chinese Law and probably Japanese Law, SE Asian Law and Chinese politics too (seeing as how ANU has some sort of partnership with them for it). I'd imagine that UNSW would have some similar electives? So I don't see the point of going over to learn something about their legal system, better off going over to check out their universities and do some sight-seeing after the course!

PPS : Are they taught in English? There's even less of a point me considering the Shang Course if it is .

 

[santaslayer]

Frigid, in terms of the thread question, I have no idea about the practicality of going overseas to do an introductory legal course, but if you do decide to go, I would strongly recommend the shanghainese one.

Shanghai girls are so flavoursome.

 

[Frigid]

yeah i know... i'm also juggling whether i should go to HKU for exchange... coz the delicacies in HK is so flavoursome too

 

[Meldrum]

You're not worried about picking up bird flu?

 

[Frigid]

You're not worried about picking up bird flu?

better than being blown up in the States or UK

 

[xeuyrawp]

.

Mate, your av is very imperialesque.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I like crests =/

 

[GoodToGo]

I know people who have done those courses and have found them to be an amazing experience. More a trip to China than anything...brilliant!