Remedies take home exam (1 Viewer)

[Skittled]

Hello my darling chickens! It's MJ (but being lazy and not logging out on Steve's computer).

Can I just say: VOMIT. Big, fat vomit. I'm so glad that horrible assignment is over. That the unit is over. I just hope Tim marks both my sections.

My Q1 was just over 4 pages, and my Q2 was 5, and I used every last inch of that paper. It was a massive question!

I had to learn remedies in 4 days... great fun. My own fault for not participating in tutes, listening to the lectures or doing the readings. Oh well, hoping for a pass, thank goodness I did decently in the essay.

Now, only statistics to go... And a week in which to learn it! Hurrah!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

good luck with ur other exams my internet friends, congrats on finishing remedies!

 

[Belinda]

I totally bombed out on the whole "policy consideration" part of question two, my brain was all out by that time.

Gah, now there's Trade Practices. *barf*

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

hey! iwr and i do trade practices too! have u started yet?

my policy considerations section tanked as well - just had no words yet, ended up having to just scrap relevant sections of it

 

[Belinda]

Just started, I'm so confused by the subject. The first problem should be okay (just cases and textbook stuff, questions quite structured) but I'm terrified of the second question... what the hell? Employment? May be it'll become clearer when I have a look at the relevant part but eh, not yet.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i don't know, i'm having some serious word limit issues - so much to say, so little words. i've pmed u btw.

 

[iwannarock]

i havent started trade prac yet.

im so screwed i don't even own the textbook for the subject. i just have the course readers.

:burn:

oh wait................these are only 1250 each!

phew! i thought it was 2500 AND 1250 for the other one.





not that it makes it any easier.

i think the first question i should be ok with. i'm gonna have to use austlii for the cases. its good that its in a b c d format it'd be much easier to structure.

but the second one........i don't even understand what it has to do with trade prac.

it looks like something to do with labour law

how it relates to consumer protection i don't know. i'm with you guys on the confusion in that one.

 

[Belinda]

The ACCC website is helpful too!

But yeah, I don't find the textbook too helpful, especially with mergers... I'm just going off the lecture notes and reader for that.

I get worried when questions seem to focus too much on one topic (e.g. mergers here) but they're actually sneakily trying to get us to talk about other areas of competition law as well. :mad1:

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

tell me about it, i'm so confused especially by (d). do either of u get the whole 'related companies' amendment thing? or know where i can look? if only it wasn't a subsidiary...

 

[iwannarock]

im only just starting the writing now.

going through mergers. i have no idea what im doing really. just stating law and drawing random conclusions.:burn:

can't help you with d........all i know about that question is it involves exclusive dealing. it also looks like riverina are guilty of third line forcing. thats s47 (6) i think. which came up in the last problem question we did regarding beer delivery. that was based on the castlemaine tooheys case?

i dunno.

i think im telling you stuff you already know.

i have no idea about this related companies business.

i just want my 11/50 and my p and for this to be over with really.

im past the point of caring.

 

[iwannarock]

oh dear im still on the mergers part.

this whole subject is a joke.

did we ever learn how to structure a problem question and what to look for.

even remedies seemed clearer than this.

im just spouting stuff from the guidelines and legislation and drawing random conclusions to the facts.

gonna be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong night.

 

[Belinda]

Don't worry I just started reading up on the second question. Long night indeed.

 

[iwannarock]

Don't worry I just started reading up on the second question. Long night indeed.

oh damn i dont even wanna be thinking about the second question.

reading all those parts of the act looking for something......anything relating to that stupid question.

:burn:

 

[iwannarock]

well i've finished q1.

still sitting on 1350. 100 words over.

will there be a 10% leeway.

fuck they never make this clear.

and fuck i cant believe i have to start a whole other question which i havent even done the reading for and know nothing about.

 

[iwannarock]

oh..........unconscionable conduct.

im an idiot.

i guess its time to rattle off legislation.

 

[iwannarock]

im up to part b of q2 now.

nooooooooooooooo idea.

:burn:

 

[Belinda]

At least you only have 250 words to go now! I'm still on Question 2(a), my alarm didn't go off when I took a nap and I overslept 4 hours!! Goddamnit!

 

[iwannarock]

At least you only have 250 words to go now! I'm still on Question 2(a), my alarm didn't go off when I took a nap and I overslept 4 hours!! Goddamnit!

oh no!

don't worry. its only 11am.

im reading now about this 2(b) business. desperately trying to find anything.

s 163 prosecutions in court.

hmmmmm that could do.

if ur having trouble with 2(a) this case might be of use.

http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2003/1099.html?query=title(David%20Walker%20%20near%20%20Salomon%20Smith%20Barney%20Securities%20)

similar facts and from about 180 onwards it talks about s52 and s53b etc.

i just regurgitated that and the wright case....which is also mentioned in that case.

 

[iwannarock]

Wow thanks! I used the Wright case too.

wright case excellent.

i know i might be on the right track then.

back to brainstorming ideas for b i go.

 

[iwannarock]

well all i came up with for part b was injunctions.

s 80 (1) of the TPA.

now i know ur thinking.....what could that do.

but what if hypothetically......this is a bastard company. media coverage of the company's lack of compliance brought the matter to the attention of the ACCC.

what if they breach left right and centre and Raymond is just one of many poor poor people affected by their wrath

injunction would put a stop to that.


and so is my theory.

i don't care if its right or wrong.......its 250 words.