Butterworths Series (1 Viewer)

[dissipate]

http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/aus/academic/publications/series/

how useful are they? and which are important to get?

a 2nd year student recommended the Q&A and student companion. another recommended the outline series.

thoughts? experiences?

 

[santaslayer]

http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/aus/academic/publications/series/

how useful are they? and which are important to get?

a 2nd year student recommended the Q&A and student companion. another recommended the outline series.

thoughts? experiences?

I've only ever purchased a legal dictionary from Butterworths. The book itself is ok but fairly useless for myself. Most of the legal terminology is explained in class or I can ask the lecturer in person. If I'm desparate, I can always google/wikipedia it anyway. I see no use in a legal dictionary...

 

[Lainee]

Butterworths is the uni version of Excel: there's a study guide and reading companion for every topic under the sun!

So far I've only bought those textbooks that are required reading for class, and one or two have been published by Butterworths. Other than that, I just borrow from the library if I need extra research material. If I had unlimited money I'd buy the books, but I use them so limitedly that it seems a waste.

 

[melsc]

The tutorial series for Torts is one of our prescribed texts it seems alright although the lectures don't like it, they think it's too easy... and we also use the dictionary and Laying Down the law as well. I find the one that is pretty useful is the referencing guide (provided thats the one u are using).

I looked at a few of those study guides and decided against them, they looked like a uni excel and I never used my excel books in year 12 anyway, for me they would sit on my shelf anyway.

 

[dissipate]

err what's excel?

yeah same here with the tute series for torts! not sure if we're gonna be using it at all :/ over here we've also got LDL and the dictionary.

and hi lainee!!

 

[melsc]

err what's excel?

yeah same here with the tute series for torts! not sure if we're gonna be using it at all :/ over here we've also got LDL and the dictionary.

That torts book is weird dont get me started on comparing torts to birds...we also have a unit reader for torts and a book called Cases on torts, I think because the other one isnt that detailed...

Excel are study guides for HSC subjects

 

[ManlyChief]

On the point of the utility of legal dictionaries, I love my legal dictionary. It not only defines terms, but, far more importantly, provides references to cases, that, at a quick glance can quickly jog my memory. In my FedCon exam, I was prompted to the correct answer twice by referring to my dictionary.

An example, by way of illustration, page 383:

Right of contribution The right of an insurer, where an assured has double insurance on a risk, to proportional contribution from the other insurer: Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) 121 CLR 342; Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) s 86(1) see also Contribution; Double Insurance

See, useful with the important stuff as well as all those niggly little Latin phrases which, for one like I who has done no Latin since year 11, retard the reading of judgements, such as: res inter alios acta noncere non debet or quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit and who can forget that little ripper rex quod injustum est facere non potest ????

 

[LaraB]

On the point of the utility of legal dictionaries, I love my legal dictionary. It not only defines terms, but, far more importantly, provides references to cases, that, at a quick glance can quickly jog my memory. In my FedCon exam, I was prompted to the correct answer twice by referring to my dictionary.

An example, by way of illustration, page 383:

Right of contribution The right of an insurer, where an assured has double insurance on a risk, to proportional contribution from the other insurer: Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) 121 CLR 342; Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) s 86(1) see also Contribution; Double Insurance

See, useful with the important stuff as well as all those niggly little Latin phrases which, for one like I who has done no Latin since year 11, retard the reading of judgements, such as: res inter alios acta noncere non debet or quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit and who can forget that little ripper rex quod injustum est facere non potest ????

Exactly!

UWS student who said they hate their dictionaries - never ever ever tell your intro teacher that!! in your research classes - that's one of the places you're meant to use to help find precedents etc - especially since the butterworths one define the term and then lists relevant legislation and cases.

You should never use a non-legal dictionary to look up 'legal terms' because the meaning is most often wrong or different.

You may not see a use in it at the moment since torts and intro don't really have much that's complex, but you will need it later

The butterworths excel-style-guides aren't any good if you are trying to use it to learn from. It's just good to use if you want to refresh your memory about a case without having to read through your notes or the case or if you haven't done your work for the class that day - at least you can read the paragraph-ish-sized summary and have a general idea of where the discussion is heading.

It's good just if you wanna look up to see if a case is worth looking into, ie if it covers the same legal issues, to save having to read thru the case itself and find out, but it's 100% useless if you rely on it to learn your stuff because it's way too simplistic and summarised.

 

[santaslayer]

The tutorial series for Torts is one of our prescribed texts it seems alright although the lectures don't like it, they think it's too easy... and we also use the dictionary and Laying Down the law as well. I find the one that is pretty useful is the referencing guide (provided thats the one u are using).

I looked at a few of those study guides and decided against them, they looked like a uni excel and I never used my excel books in year 12 anyway, for me they would sit on my shelf anyway.

auuhh...woops, is laying down the law a butterworths text?

We used it in a Foundation unit of Law. Twas shit. The cover (which was green in my edition) was shit.
the language was not particularly easy for a first year law student.
was overly tedious and boring.

only my pov.

 

[melsc]

auuhh...woops, is laying down the law a butterworths text?

We used it in a Foundation unit of Law. Twas shit. The cover (which was green in my edition) was shit.
the language was not particularly easy for a first year law student.
was overly tedious and boring.

only my pov.

Yep yep :uhhuh: Yeah the Green cover was ugly, I always judge books by their cover lol now its sexy and blue :rofl:

You can kinda see its sexy blue colour in this pic...

Its not bad,but I find it a bit boring since I have done some of the stuff to death in both history and legal (like English legal history and mabo) though it is interesting to see it from another perspective. Though we do suppliment it with readings from our book of readings drawn from multiple texts.

 

[santaslayer]

Yep yep :uhhuh: Yeah the Green cover was ugly, I always judge books by their cover lol now its sexy and blue :rofl:

You can kinda see its sexy blue colour in this pic...

Its not bad,but I find it a bit boring since I have done some of the stuff to death in both history and legal (like English legal history and mabo) though it is interesting to see it from another perspective. Though we do suppliment it with readings from our book of readings drawn from multiple texts.

lol, i see that u have a small collection of law books already.

we also had supp texts as well. cost us heaps from memory. compiled by the uni themselves. all they did was reprint and sell for a killer profit..lol





best book so far is the criminal text. materials and commentary on criminal law and process in nsw by brown et al...

easiest read was federal constitutional law: a contempoary view by s joseph and m castan...english level was quite elementry. NICE!

 

[melsc]

I think my readers were like $25 for intro and $12.50 for torts or something (and most of the photocopying has been done so badly and all squished onto the page...) but its better than buying extra books lol...

(Is it sad I took that photo the day my lawbooks came in the mail? )

 

[El Misterio]

I've always found those Butterworths summary guides (or, indeed, those of any publisher) to be close to useless. The only way in which they might be of value is in helping you structure your notes if the convenor / lecturer has done a poor job of arranging the course.

 

[MiuMiu]

I used the same two books for torts as Melsc is using, but I don't think I ever opened the casebook, just the tutorial series (which is very basic and just cuts right to the chase).

 

[ManlyChief]

I used Cases on Torts since one of the editors was my seminar instructor (he was lovely, the best one I've ever had) but I found Luntz & Hambly's Torts: Cases and Commentary more informative.

 

[dissipate]

That torts book is weird dont get me started on comparing torts to birds

oh man yeah. and all that comparing the author did was for nothing because it got me even more confused. there's another bit in either the same book or some other book comparing the subject with love.

I used the same two books for torts as Melsc is using, but I don't think I ever opened the casebook, just the tutorial series (which is very basic and just cuts right to the chase).

yeah miumiu, i checked out the tutorial series and it's much easier to read. simpler language and not grandmother longwinded. :giddy:

 

[MiuMiu]

but I found Luntz & Hambly's Torts: Cases and Commentary more informative.

My lecturer quotes Luntz and Hambly a lot, I don't know why it wasn't prescribed actually...

 

[melsc]

It was for lasrt years class but they complained abt it so they changed the text, however a lot of the articles from our reader are from that one.

 

[El Misterio]

I used Cases on Torts since one of the editors was my seminar instructor (he was lovely, the best one I've ever had) but I found Luntz & Hambly's Torts: Cases and Commentary more informative.

Ah yes, everyone's a Ross Anderson fan.

 

[LaraB]

It was for lasrt years class but they complained abt it so they changed the text, however a lot of the articles from our reader are from that one.

Peopple bitched but... it's a far better book than the ones you have now. People always whinge about chunky books, people whinged about the Crim one Brown et al, but it was a really good book and was easy to follow.

If you did the work it wasn't a problem - most the people in my class who whinged about it were peopel who didn't do t heir work, coz you couldn't flick through it a few minutes before class and then bs your way through the seminar.

I didn't do my work most weeks in torts lol which i don't plan on doing again coz it's stressful before exams but the weeks before exams when i was mad cramming, it was far easier to understand L&H than the other books... they're too simplified and they don't give you as many related cases and the like so you seem to just get the one or 2 views, rathe rthan the many conflicting views.