-
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Cases (an opportunity for Uni kids to show off) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Meldrum
- Start date
goan_crazy
Hates the waiting game...
monique66
Active Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
The ladies directory case (Shaw v Diector of DPP) for moral influences on the law
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company (1893) for contract law
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) for negligence...for just law and juctise not including HR, all in your textbook
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company (1893) for contract law
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) for negligence...for just law and juctise not including HR, all in your textbook
L
LaraB
Guest
i know this a bit old thread...
but thought i'd say to all u 05 hsc people - don't ask uni people for cases!
you don't need to and if it may not directlt relate to the scope of the law that you are required to understand for HSc purposes. More often than not, adding too much extra info that exceeds a high school level does nothing but detract from ur answer.
Espec. as in uni, the closest you get to high school law is Intro to Law (where i go that's what the unit's called) and the stuff we do does not align with your topics and the syllabus points.
Stick to the syllabus and what other hs kids are saying and you won't go wrong
i mean...my lowest legal mark all thru yr 11 and 12 was 90, i have an older bro doing law and i never asked him for advice coz my teacher said you'll do better without it so you can get awesome marks just on hs stuff
overloading urself on info makes it sooo hard come hsc time! believe me!
that said - Just laws - John singleton's case,
the recent case in which the judge fell asleep during the rape trial - that is not just as she didi recieve fair and equal treatment - sorry name escapes me atm... depending on your viewpoint,
Derryn Hinch's case - he released the name of a known paedophile to protect the public, was jailed for it - you coudl argue that the law was unjust as he was protecting the public interest against a person who was known to be of harm to the community thus he should not have been punished as his jailing was not for th the public good,
Donohue v Stevenson - established that a manufacturer has a responsibility to all potential consumers not just the purchaser so this was just in that it allowed any person harmed by the others act/negligence to remedy wherease befroe they wpould have siply been left to remedy their own situation which may have been seen as unjust,
important one for "Just laws" and doctrine of natural law - R V DIETRICH!!! this was the legal aid case!!! this established one of if not the most important process to (in theory) enable greater equality before the law! (although you shoudl discuss the merit and means test and how this limits the access to it)
Case of Kevin - transgender allowed to marry - just as it reflects the advanced/changed societal values thus fulfils better the concept of justice than disallowing it as this would have offended and been detrimental to certain parties (although you could argue it unjust as it negates the value and sanctity of marriage etc)
Andrea Patrick's case - made stalking illegal - just as it further enable public safety, particularly women as they are predominantly the victims, whereas prior, there was no remedy for people who elt threatened by a 'stalker'
S v S - made forced (not arranged - forced! makesure y ou differentiate them) illegal - just as it enforced our societal viewpoint ( being a western society - australia) that freedom of choice of marriage should be a right all have. May be arguedto be unjust as it fails to recognise cultural differences.
Khan v Khan - recognises polygamous marrigaes for purposes of divorces and wills - this is a good one as it kinda meets both sides half way - they're recognised but not allowed to eb created here. So, they are just as they allow rememdies for 'wrongs' against the spouses and children, however esposes australian morals and ideals through saying that the creation of these narriages is wrong so they aren't allowed to be created here.
De Facto Relationships Act (can't rememebr the year...lol thats left my memory..) - just as it recognised societal advancements and the view that persons living as married couples had a right to the same legal recognition as a married couple. Argument against this is that this doesn't extend to all matters ( i think one of these is wills? but im not sure ...)
Mandatory sentencing in Nt that was used
yeah - i did family and global a lot of global is inapplicable to this but i remember a lot of the family stuff.
but yeah - try not to use international cases in law and society as you cannot compare australian idealogies of justice with say, zimbabwe or indonesia or even the USA as justice is an ideal not a 'thing' and markers prefer you to relate it to our society
but thought i'd say to all u 05 hsc people - don't ask uni people for cases!
you don't need to and if it may not directlt relate to the scope of the law that you are required to understand for HSc purposes. More often than not, adding too much extra info that exceeds a high school level does nothing but detract from ur answer.
Espec. as in uni, the closest you get to high school law is Intro to Law (where i go that's what the unit's called) and the stuff we do does not align with your topics and the syllabus points.
Stick to the syllabus and what other hs kids are saying and you won't go wrong
i mean...my lowest legal mark all thru yr 11 and 12 was 90, i have an older bro doing law and i never asked him for advice coz my teacher said you'll do better without it so you can get awesome marks just on hs stuff
overloading urself on info makes it sooo hard come hsc time! believe me!
that said - Just laws - John singleton's case,
the recent case in which the judge fell asleep during the rape trial - that is not just as she didi recieve fair and equal treatment - sorry name escapes me atm... depending on your viewpoint,
Derryn Hinch's case - he released the name of a known paedophile to protect the public, was jailed for it - you coudl argue that the law was unjust as he was protecting the public interest against a person who was known to be of harm to the community thus he should not have been punished as his jailing was not for th the public good,
Donohue v Stevenson - established that a manufacturer has a responsibility to all potential consumers not just the purchaser so this was just in that it allowed any person harmed by the others act/negligence to remedy wherease befroe they wpould have siply been left to remedy their own situation which may have been seen as unjust,
important one for "Just laws" and doctrine of natural law - R V DIETRICH!!! this was the legal aid case!!! this established one of if not the most important process to (in theory) enable greater equality before the law! (although you shoudl discuss the merit and means test and how this limits the access to it)
Case of Kevin - transgender allowed to marry - just as it reflects the advanced/changed societal values thus fulfils better the concept of justice than disallowing it as this would have offended and been detrimental to certain parties (although you could argue it unjust as it negates the value and sanctity of marriage etc)
Andrea Patrick's case - made stalking illegal - just as it further enable public safety, particularly women as they are predominantly the victims, whereas prior, there was no remedy for people who elt threatened by a 'stalker'
S v S - made forced (not arranged - forced! makesure y ou differentiate them) illegal - just as it enforced our societal viewpoint ( being a western society - australia) that freedom of choice of marriage should be a right all have. May be arguedto be unjust as it fails to recognise cultural differences.
Khan v Khan - recognises polygamous marrigaes for purposes of divorces and wills - this is a good one as it kinda meets both sides half way - they're recognised but not allowed to eb created here. So, they are just as they allow rememdies for 'wrongs' against the spouses and children, however esposes australian morals and ideals through saying that the creation of these narriages is wrong so they aren't allowed to be created here.
De Facto Relationships Act (can't rememebr the year...lol thats left my memory..) - just as it recognised societal advancements and the view that persons living as married couples had a right to the same legal recognition as a married couple. Argument against this is that this doesn't extend to all matters ( i think one of these is wills? but im not sure ...)
Mandatory sentencing in Nt that was used
yeah - i did family and global a lot of global is inapplicable to this but i remember a lot of the family stuff.
but yeah - try not to use international cases in law and society as you cannot compare australian idealogies of justice with say, zimbabwe or indonesia or even the USA as justice is an ideal not a 'thing' and markers prefer you to relate it to our society
Last edited by a moderator: