Writing an assignment for law (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

Hi guys!
This semester I am doing a one off law subject (Australian Legal System) and we're on to assignment 2. Now Assignment 1 I passed, but it was only an essay and didn't require the use of referencing cases etc.

Assignment two is more tricky. The scenario is: You have studied a number of cases in the law of torts that developed the law of negligence. Stating with Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge 'Willemstad' [1976] HCA65; (1976) 136 CLR 529 show how the doctrine of precedent applies by reference to the cases which followed that decision.

Gosh. I'm a science student, and this law subject is so far removed from what we'd normally do. I'm not asking for answers, more of a guide as to how I would tackle and set out such an assignment? Obviously I'm going to have to read the case and find cases which resulted from the precedent, but how would I find similar cases? Does Austlii link like cases, or would I have to do a search for the Ratio decidendi??

 

[katie tully]

To clarify...
I'm not going to set this out as a normal essay, am I? Would I need to do an overview of what was in the Caltex v Dredge case, what the precedent was, and then link the similar facts in that case with others, to demonstrate the doctrine of precedent???

 

[Frigid]

katie, if i understand you correctly, your question asks you to start with Wagon Mound No 2 and show how the cases following it illustrate the doctrine of precedent.

what comes to mind immediately:-

- What were the principles underlying WM2,
- What cases followed that case?
- How did those cases (you have to treat them separately) treat the principles in WM2? For example:
(a) How did judges in later cases apply the principles in WM2?
(b) Consider the court hierarchy and how WM2 bounds which lower courts.
(c) Were there any attempts to enlarge/narrow the principles in WM2?
(d) Were there any cases which attempted to distinguish WM2 and how did they do so?

- How, then, given the above, does WM2 illustrate the doctrine of precedent? Has WM2 always been strictly followed? Are WM2 and its following cases, then, a good example of the development of the common law as an organic, incremental, structured system?

food for thought.

 

[katie tully]

Thanks for your help! I think I'm on the right track, it deals with economic loss and issues regarding foreseeability. I think it'll be hard to do in terms of precedent. I'm not sure, but it'd be difficult creating a formula for economic loss that can be applied to other cases, with reference to proximity??

I'll spend today on it and if it's ok with you guys, I'll bring back what I've done and it'd be appreciated if you could just go yay or nay.

Haha, be so glad when it's over. I'm definitely not cut out for law.

 

[jackmurray1989]

Type the case into Austlii and go to it. Then up the top click 'note up' and it will give you all the later Australian cases which applied that case.

 

[katie tully]

Hahaha thanks. I was typing in the keywords and managed to find 3 cases that referenced it!

Kudos.

 

[melsc]

I can imagine how hard it is for you, when I look back on first year it really was quite hard. Just keep at it and you wont have to do it again!

Good luck and I'll try and help

 

[katie tully]

Sup guys!

Anybody know of some good links that will explain torts, so that I can reference them in my assignment? I've done a search and I get a lot of subject outlines for uni and stuff, and some specific links on wrongful death suits, but I really just want a fairly simple outline on what a tort is from a fairly respected source.

I've got wikipedia as a back up, but I dunno how this lecturer will take wikipedia references

 

[melsc]

try halsbury's laws of australia or laws of australia - they are legal encyclopedia's that explain things simply and ur uni should have access to them online

 

[katie tully]

very cool thx

just went to the library and photocopied a heap from a butterworths business law

now all i need to do is pull an all nighter tonight, and hey presto