jackmurray1989
Mr Mature
Has anyone actually read all that shit? Do you guys actually read all your cases or just look for a summary on wikipedia?
Donoghue v Stevenson (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jackmurray1989
- Start date
melsc
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 6,365
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
It only gets worse, most learn how to take it and you find that you will learn to read faster and faster as you go along.Demandred said:
Thats one case just wait till they haqve you reading a few for each subject per week.
NEVER EVER USE WIKI for UNIVERSITY LAW...no...casebooks are much better summaries.
Good luck
Ahahaha. Donoghue v Stevenson is nothing. You are expected to read, and know, the cases for your course. Even if you don't know the dissenting judgements, at least know the ratio. PS you won't find it on wikipedia, and if you do, it's probably wrong.
You'll learn to read faster, trust me.
You'll learn to read faster, trust me.
Some cases will be more iportant than others. They'll let you know which ones to focus on. Reading judgments in general though is just a good habit. but often too much reading can cloud your thought, and sometimes it's just best to take 1 or 2 points from a case that could be quite long. it's easy to get bogged down in facts, when sometimes all you need is the ratio of the case.
but yeah, it will all become more clear as you go along.
but yeah, it will all become more clear as you go along.
MichaelJackson2
Moonwalker
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2006
- Messages
- 131
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
I never read the whole case - read a few paragraphs and then go lost. Almost had a heart attack when there was a major exam question on it - somehow I got by. Does anyone know what the ratio of the case was??? Most people would say that it was Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' but I remember my torts lecturer specifically mentioning that this was a pretty common misconception.
jackmurray1989
Mr Mature
Everytime someone says ratio I think it's 3:2 in the house of lords. How do you work out the ratio? Will the judge for the case specifically mention it or do you have to see how it is applied in later cases?
I'm so screwed for this. Luckily it's only Wollongong so there's bound to be a fair number shitter than me.
I'm so screwed for this. Luckily it's only Wollongong so there's bound to be a fair number shitter than me.
lol. I'd recommend getting 'laying down the law' - a pretty solid foundations text which explains all of the stuff about ratio and obiter dicta. Google the terms too...
Ratio = the holding of the case. What the majority held. But sometimes the majority judgment can be comprised of individual judgments where the reasoning in each particular judgment is different (while all still coming to the same outcome). This is a 'weak majority'. A strong majority conversely, is where you have a majority joint judgment all following hte same reasoning to arrive at the same outcome.
Obiter, fyi, is hypothetical stuff, saying how a judge might apply the law if the circumstances and facts of the case were slightly altered, or different in a future case. Obiter can often become the ratio of a subsequent judgment when a judge uses it to come to a resolution in a particular case.
Ok enough from me, go do your own research!
anyway, don't quote me on any of this shit because I'm still learning and could be wrong!
Ratio = the holding of the case. What the majority held. But sometimes the majority judgment can be comprised of individual judgments where the reasoning in each particular judgment is different (while all still coming to the same outcome). This is a 'weak majority'. A strong majority conversely, is where you have a majority joint judgment all following hte same reasoning to arrive at the same outcome.
Obiter, fyi, is hypothetical stuff, saying how a judge might apply the law if the circumstances and facts of the case were slightly altered, or different in a future case. Obiter can often become the ratio of a subsequent judgment when a judge uses it to come to a resolution in a particular case.
Ok enough from me, go do your own research!
anyway, don't quote me on any of this shit because I'm still learning and could be wrong!
jackmurray1989
Mr Mature
Group 3.Cookie182 said:
Yeah, criminal's shithouse. It's just because the text is so wanky. I was expecting criminal to be good and contract to be shit but it's been the other way around.
I just spent the whole weekend + today not doing any of the readings. I'm going to see if I can get though easily without doing the readings. I'll let you know how it goes.
And cheers amaccas, but I can't be fucked to think about it at the moment. I'm just hoping there'll be a point further down the track where a lightbulb comes up and everything suddenly makes sense without me needing to do anything.
melsc
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 6,365
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Good luck with that, personally I don't suggest it. Most people dont get through it all, but doing none will mean you either cram during stuvac or the mid sem break (since we at mac done get stuvac) or just scrape passes. How will your essay have any originality or independant and critical analysis thought if you take the lecturers interpretation to text or your class mates without reading and understanding it?jackmurray1989 said:
It might be overwhelming but giving up is going to make things worse, it takes getting used to but personally I don't know how many people pull off decent law marks with no reading whatsoever.
morganjane
Member
the thing kinda is...
i'm a year 12 legal studies student and I know Donoghue v Stevenson. its an odd case. Enjoy it. Lol.
I cant wait to study law at uni...
i'm a year 12 legal studies student and I know Donoghue v Stevenson. its an odd case. Enjoy it. Lol.
I cant wait to study law at uni...
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
Carlill v Carbolic definately rips on D v S in terms of introductory cases
besides the point
my favourite part of D v S is-
"Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." (Lord Atkin at 580)
god id love to have the ability to word shit like that...
besides the point
my favourite part of D v S is-
"Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." (Lord Atkin at 580)
god id love to have the ability to word shit like that...
MichaelJackson2
Moonwalker
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2006
- Messages
- 131
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
so what is the ratio of D v S? i never read D v S and now that I've got an ambulance chasing moot to focus on after i'm done with exams, it looks like i'll have to read the case! did lord atkin just plagiarise the bible in formulating the neighbour principle? how did the neighbour principle become a LEGAL duty? was it because lord atkin's mummy once told him to not play with rubber bands because it might take someone's eye out?