Introduction to law marks available!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter = Jennifer =
- Start date
= Jennifer =
Active Member
congratulations to all and a special congratulations to lara 
lara is my uni buddy :uhhuh: maybe her smartness will rub off onto me one day
n.b. i know smartness isnt a word!
lara is my uni buddy :uhhuh: maybe her smartness will rub off onto me one day
n.b. i know smartness isnt a word!
L
LaraB
Guest
yep and i used the original one - 2003, can't remember the date...Spirits said:
raised by the same guy, but supported by diferent parties ie greens didn't support either, labour didnt support the 1st but said they'd support the 2nd if a few alterations were made etc...
there was also another one..can't remember its name, but was on rights of parliament to mark laws regarding aliens coz that was brought up in response to cases that woolley used
L
LaraB
Guest
haha lol...= Jennifer = said:congratulations to all and a special congratulations to lara
lara is my uni buddy :uhhuh: maybe her smartness will rub off onto me one day
n.b. i know smartness isnt a word!
i think it was like Susan told us - probably the actual 'how you researched' that counts for the most rather than what you said coz i didnt make sense but found a shitload of reallly good sources
L
LaraB
Guest
lol ur nuts!!!Angel45 said:
i think its interesting but right now it's driving me insane trying to right notes up and remember how to answer problems and stuff..
i think its more confuysing coz we did it B-D-D instead of D-B-D so even if u re order it writing your notes up and stuff, the works all relatedto each other and refers to each other in a screwy kinda order....
Jonathan A
Active Member
The reason it was taught that way is that negligence was previously closely related to facts of a case. Originally prior to the Heaven v Pender, all that needed to be proven was negligent conduct, and damage arising from that conduct. However a question of law has arisen, we also need to consider to whom one owes a duty not to be negligent (and the law isn't clear on it).
L
LaraB
Guest
yeah we know there's a reason why it was taught differently...although susan did say Katrina and her agreed it was best to do it our of order purely because of ease of understanding because breach is the easiest to understand and has the least content not because of the way the law has changed/functions...Jonathan A said:
just saying it makes it hard to write notes when you have to re order it to make sense of it in order to answer a problem since when answering a problem its easist to do it in order of DBD...
L
LaraB
Guest
not sure if ur "?" means you didnt get what i meant or something else so i meant we learnt it in iorder of Breach, Duty, Damage but have been told the best way to address a problem is Duty, Breach, DamageAngel45 said:
so yeah..its kinda confusing trying to order notes and stuff
yeah.. i'm thinking on my A4 i might just do each 'topic' area... list the cases/CLA sections and what it refers to and that's it..maybe less..like you can leav out stuff like D&S re the neighbourhood test and stuff coz its easy to remember..
trying to condense it to one side of the page rather than double sided coz its less to look through in the exam
L
LaraB
Guest
i went n got mine last week..Angel45 said:
not much help...at least for me anyway since the only marks on the entire paper are a circle around something stupid i did and the mark and that's it....
Simon said that it's probably not much use since we won't be asked to evaluate stuff in the same way in the exam since we won't have a billino quotes and sources in front of us to evaluate and thta kinda thing...
Okay, thanks heaps 4 that. I mightn't worry then.
Last one we got back wasn't much use!
Hey, how close u sticking to the guidelines? Did Margaret mention anything bout them being only rough?!? Coz like they're all sort of linked..it makes senses that they'd be roughly what each q would involve??
Just not sure how much to deviate from it...or whether to stick just to 'em...coz u look thru the textbook and u think oh gawd no way you'd remember all those specific details.
Last one we got back wasn't much use!
Hey, how close u sticking to the guidelines? Did Margaret mention anything bout them being only rough?!? Coz like they're all sort of linked..it makes senses that they'd be roughly what each q would involve??
Just not sure how much to deviate from it...or whether to stick just to 'em...coz u look thru the textbook and u think oh gawd no way you'd remember all those specific details.
L
LaraB
Guest
she didn't really say much...but through9ut the semester she kept saying if you do the readings and can answer the seminar questions you'll be fineAngel45 said:Okay, thanks heaps 4 that. I mightn't worry then.
Last one we got back wasn't much use!
Hey, how close u sticking to the guidelines? Did Margaret mention anything bout them being only rough?!? Coz like they're all sort of linked..it makes senses that they'd be roughly what each q would involve??
Just not sure how much to deviate from it...or whether to stick just to 'em...coz u look thru the textbook and u think oh gawd no way you'd remember all those specific details.
= Jennifer =
Active Member
LaraB said:
even time i go to collect my assignment they say simon isnt there
so lucky i have a copy of it to look overSeeing as how acts int. act u know, ovverules all the other previous court approaches.. are they much use at all to us.. other then maybe just to mention them briefly as in... the act requires this which is diff. to the such-and-such rule which allowed/or didn't allow this. or do they serve some meaningful purpose to us in our intepretation of the statute?
L
LaraB
Guest
they sorta are since pur[psive approach developed from them;.;.Angel45 said:
plus, you can only read down words if the literal meaning creates an absurdity so in a way you use the literal/plain/ordinary meaning approacg 1st..
i wasn't sure bout this since both acts say 'purposive approach' and technically 'purposive' describews both the golden rule and purpose approach...