LAWS1052 in-class test (1 Viewer)

[imagine]

hi, i was just wondering does anyone know if the assessment next week is open book? coz my in-class test was...so i was wondering can we bring like notes and dictionaries etc again?

 

[Newbie]

yep it is

 

[rukawasan]

laz... can u do me a favour... i need u to find some journal articles cos i havent had legal research yet n dont know how to use the database... ive got the citations for the articles

 

[Lazarus]

I really don't have time to research anything for you - sorry.

Partner yourself with someone who is taking legal research.

 

[rukawasan]

cool... no prob... i just found it... it was easier than i expected

 

[addz]

esparagga pulled a shifty and moved the test to monday next week...considering he told us it was gonna be on thursday..now we get 4 days with the case and lots of fun reading it

 

[sugared plum]

who is this esperagga guy? i have heard SO many complaints about him from people, but he's not on the staff list. weird.

 

[rukawasan]

hes a part-time associate professor at both unsw and usyd...
hes not thaaaaaat bad... but his teaching style is a bit vague and nonchalant...

 

[sugared plum]

nonchalant hahaha

 

[Newbie]

hi

would "newbie initiated proceedings against bob for stealing his jelly" be a part of material facts? or do you just stop before there?

 

[sugared plum]

Well you should say that but in a different way - because bob might not agree that he stole your jelly, and therefore it's not a fact but a matter in dispute - a legal issue which has to be resolved.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by Newbie
would "newbie initiated proceedings against bob for stealing his jelly" be a part of material facts? or do you just stop before there?

Procedural history, not material facts.

As sugared plum said, Newbie would be "alleging" that Bob stole his jelly.

 

[Newbie]

what if bob concedes that he stole my jelly before trial begins and newbie doesnt wana stop there, i wana declare to the world that all your jelly are belong to me( ie like a test case)

would that change your answer?

 

[Lazarus]

With reference to your case, the proceedings of Bulun Bulun and Milpurrurru are separate proceedings.

Bulun Bulun's claim was settled by consent, and this case deals with the claims pleaded by Milpurrurru.

Hence Bulun Bulun's claim would form part of the factual matrix of Milpurrurru's case.

 

[Newbie]

thanks

 

[Golani]

Laz i read your response about the rule of law, it's very nicely written i must say...i reckon you lost your marks because you focused more on whether or not the decision complied with the rule of law, rather than what the judge considered with respect to the rule of law (i.e. concepts of the rule of law, different notions, which you then should've connected to your given materials such as the textbook and so forth).
But then again i dunno all the details surrounding your exam.

Anyways, ummmmm, i dunno how familiar you are with Bulun Bulun and friends (which i'm doing this tuesday, cough). Can i just pick your brain about where does equity and the development of equity come in, and the topic of settlement? (blackstone and friends).



ta

 

[Newbie]

what is "artificial reasoning" ?

i've only seen it mentioned like once or twice in my reading materials

 

[imagine]

Originally posted by Lazarus
With reference to your case, the proceedings of Bulun Bulun and Milpurrurru are separate proceedings.

Bulun Bulun's claim was settled by consent, and this case deals with the claims pleaded by Milpurrurru.

Hence Bulun Bulun's claim would form part of the factual matrix of Milpurrurru's case.

hey just wondering what is factual matrix? so would bulun bulun's win be a material fact to this case?

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by imagine
hey just wondering what is factual matrix? so would bulun bulun's win be a material fact to this case?

The factual matrix is simply the set of facts surrounding the case.

Bulun Bulun didn't 'win' anything - his claims were settled and never made it to the courts. Whilst Bulun Bulun's proceedings might be relevant to Milpurrurru's case, the terms of his settlement probably aren't. The judge needed only to know that he had brought the action in the first place, thereby discharging his fiduciary duties.

Originally posted by Newbie
what is "artificial reasoning" ?

Mmm... artificial reasoning... Sir Edward Coke believed that the process of the common law continuing throughout the ages - in the form of binding precedents - meant that judicial reasoning was continuously being refined and 'perfected'. He claimed that judicial reasoning had evolved into something beyond that of normal reasoning, simply because it had been able to withstand the 'test of time' for so long. Judges and lawyers (perhaps due to their specialised training) were able to tap into this higher, artificial form of reasoning, but it was inaccessible to commoners.

That's about all I can remember. I don't think it's particularly relevant to your case. I vaguely recall there being a distinct lack of material on artificial reasoning in the Foundations course too.

Originally posted by Golani
Can i just pick your brain about where does equity and the development of equity come in, and the topic of settlement? (blackstone and friends).

I think this is important - but I'm too tired right now. I'll try to write a proper response later today.

 

[addz]

a reasoning you can only gain thru the "vigorous" training that the lawyers/judges needed to go thru during those times..hence artificial