court visit - observations and ethics law208 (1 Viewer)

[mrbsting]

question 1 was a major wth moment. Took me about an hour and a half to do and I don't think I did it right. As a result the rest of my answers to the remaining questions were rushed.

 

[misericordia]

well im kinda tipsy atm (vodka cruiser always do wonders to cure emotional pain)
but, from what i can remember off the top of my head i thought:
Q1: Masters v Cameron, the doctrine of part performance
Q2: Incorporation of term by notice
Q3: Misrepresentation at common law and TPA s 52 -> Right to rescission
Q4:
a)Frustration
b)Statutory illegality (by implication)
I only wrote 13 pages btw. cannot believe i spent 3 hours to write just 13 pages. it shows how retarded i am.

 

[peter2222]

I done law204 contracts last year. OMG it was shit I remember we had 3 problem questions which was quite unreal. Luckily I ended up passing the subject. So shit seriously. We had a mad lecturer last year which actually made me sort of wanting to come in to the lectures. Contracts is just a shit, hard subject. You will all pass so dont worry or dont stress even if you just pass as many people "just" pass contracts a lot.

 

[mrbsting]

well im kinda tipsy atm (vodka cruiser always do wonders to cure emotional pain)
but, from what i can remember off the top of my head i thought:
Q1: Masters v Cameron, the doctrine of part performance
Q2: Incorporation of term by notice
Q3: Misrepresentation at common law and TPA s 52 -> Right to rescission
Q4:
a)Frustration
b)Statutory illegality (by implication)
I only wrote 13 pages btw. cannot believe i spent 3 hours to write just 13 pages. it shows how retarded i am.

Same as what you had, except 4 b) i didn't do much work on stat illegality.

 

[mrbsting]

well im kinda tipsy atm (vodka cruiser always do wonders to cure emotional pain)

Yeah I think I'm going to have to find those hash cookies.

 

[Snooty]

well im kinda tipsy atm (vodka cruiser always do wonders to cure emotional pain)
but, from what i can remember off the top of my head i thought:
Q1: Masters v Cameron, the doctrine of part performance
Q2: Incorporation of term by notice
Q3: Misrepresentation at common law and TPA s 52 -> Right to rescission
Q4:
a)Frustration
b)Statutory illegality (by implication)
I only wrote 13 pages btw. cannot believe i spent 3 hours to write just 13 pages. it shows how retarded i am.

I had the exact same as you. Also wrote 13 pages as well. Although by the end my writing was barely legible!

I think i would have preferred 3 question without discrete subject areas rather than the 4 questions with them. Looking back at the past exam papers, most of the questions were in discrete subject areas anyway. That 2006 paper looks super easy.

4 question in 3 hours made me rush hard.

 

[misericordia]

yay, from talking to people who did the exam i gathered that i might be on a right track. well i'm glad i'm not the only one who wrote 13 pages, 'cause it made me seriously scared when i saw the girl next to me with huge pile of books (like, 50cm thick in total), writing 2 booklets frantically. idk how people can speeedwrite. even if i can think fast enough, my hand starts to ache quite badly oh well, thank god all exams are over.
for sem2 i don't think Tort had prerequisite other than 6cp from 100 level law units so i guess i can still take the unit even if i fail contract law (it makes me feel better)...

 

[cr9758]

so glad that is over...

Oh my goodness, yes about the airy fairyness!!! And the textbook is HORRIBLE! They would've been better off prescribing the textbook that goes with the casebook and getting us to look up the relevant cases if need be... While the content is interesting it's just not very cohesive... oh well, all stuff for the unit survey at the end.

haha! and for a while there i thought it was just me. a couple of weeks into the course i bought the accompanying textbook... and OMG i can't count the number of times it made me burst out laughing. it contains endlessly hysterical comments relating to lawyers being children of god and how in order to be a good/worthy lawyer, god and religion and theology must play a part in one's life.

have you checked out the dude who wrote it? lols. to top it all off, he's apparently some sort of pranic healing energy master.

for the record, the referencing format or lack thereof in the casebook was the worst i've ever come across. great way to lead by example. perhaps not that much of a surprise that six LAW208 students were later accused of plagiarism in the assignment.

 

[antisheep]

Re: so glad that is over...

haha! and for a while there i thought it was just me. a couple of weeks into the course i bought the accompanying textbook... and OMG i can't count the number of times it made me burst out laughing. it contains endlessly hysterical comments relating to lawyers being children of god and how in order to be a good/worthy lawyer, god and religion and theology must play a part in one's life.

have you checked out the dude who wrote it? lols. to top it all off, he's apparently some sort of pranic healing energy master.

for the record, the referencing format or lack thereof in the casebook was the worst i've ever come across. great way to lead by example. perhaps not that much of a surprise that six LAW208 students were later accused of plagiarism in the assignment.

haha... omg so not surprising... I hope they look for a new textbook... the whole unit was one giant ball of fail... the only saving grace was Lise who I loved. Oh well, passed it so I don't care anymore!