How are law exams/assessments? (1 Viewer)

[ND]

What do you usually have to do in exams and assessments throughout law? Are the exams mostly like that monash torts paper posted by Asquithian, where you've got a scenario and basically have to work out whether you've got a case, or are they different? Also, if you're allowed to take in books, wouldn't that be kinda easy (i.e. you just find a similar case) ?
Thanks for any info.

 

[timmii]

*chuckle* oh the naivety of it all

Haha they specifically provide scenarios that have no clear analogous situation, so that you have to make up your own kind of reasoning.

For instance, if you know that damages are awarded for the full cost of maintenance of child born as a result of a failed sterilisation operation, what do you do when the child itself was wanted, but the doctor was merely negligent in informing you that the infant is deformed (and if you had been informed, you would have had an abortion).

Same damages? You still have a child you don't want now - but one is healthy, one isn't. One was wanted to begin with, one wasn't....(that was usyd torts assignment btw).

Usyd is closed book anyway. And some questions are problem, some are on the principles of the law/history/purposes (apparently...) but don't know bout unsw.

 

[ND]

Originally posted by timmii
*chuckle* oh the naivety of it all

Hey i'm a mere high school student..

Originally posted by timmii
Haha they specifically provide scenarios that have no clear analogous situation, so that you have to make up your own kind of reasoning.

For instance, if you know that damages are awarded for the full cost of maintenance of child born as a result of a failed sterilisation operation, what do you do when the child itself was wanted, but the doctor was merely negligent in informing you that the infant is deformed (and if you had been informed, you would have had an abortion).

Same damages? You still have a child you don't want now - but one is healthy, one isn't. One was wanted to begin with, one wasn't....(that was usyd torts assignment btw).

Usyd is closed book anyway. And some questions are problem, some are on the principles of the law/history/purposes (apparently...) but don't know bout unsw.

Ah i see, thanks alot.

 

[timmii]

Asqy, dude...There aren't any clear precedents, and if there are it obviously didn't matter too much coz i somehow managed an HD for it . Thanks for your concern tho

 

[Frigid]

oHhHhHhHh *look at timmii go*

so basically torts is a 'discussion' on ethical situations and applying precedents and legal knowledge to hypothesise a result?

 

[Lexicographer]

[whacks Frigid with language stick]

not everyone will follow that, stop trying to show off to the law kids!

 

[timmii]

No...torts isn't really an"ethical discussion". The example i gave you was rather anomalous.

Torts are civil wrongs - so the law of torts aims to protect certain personal interests. Often it is a case of looking at precedent and extrapolating principles to be applied elsewhere. The damages awarded aim to compensate the victim so that they are in the same position they would have been notwithstanding the tortious act.

Which is where my above example comes in - if the doctor had not been negligent in misinforming the mother that her child was deformed, she would have aborted. Thus she now as a deformed baby, and if he had not been negligent, she would not have had a baby at all...thus she must be compensated.

Perhaps a better example may be if you were run over. The damages awarded would aim to place you in the same position you may have been without the injury - hospital expenses, lost income from working, the cost of a live-in nurse etc etc...There are other forms of damages but i'll let you find out about them next year

 

[Frigid]

lexi! *whacks back*

i wanna do law, even if you shoot me with a small calibre pistol at point-blank range behind a tree!

since truly's got her biz exam (go linda!) today, lemme just post this on her behalf:
LAW FOREVER!!!

 

[Lexicographer]

You really are scratching for her attention aren't you?

I'll give you a tip though: She doesn't like being called Linda. Maybe that one will help.

edit: this post sounds really barbed, so if I seem like a complete prick here I didn't mean to

 

[Frigid]

Originally posted by Lexicographer
edit: this post sounds really barbed, so if I seem like a complete prick here I didn't mean to

you complete prick! ;p

now you have completely ruined frigid's day...

 

[timmii]

Haha thanx asq. argh so embarassed now tho, shouldnt have posted that.

as for the assignment - we only had to consider DOC issues and damages recoverable - rather than causation etc.

I saw the case u're thinking of, but it was a failed sterilisation case as well. So the doctor did not actually breach any duty to not injure the child - so he strictly should not be liable for compensating for the injuries. In a round about way though, he was however responsible for the child's birth - so then he should compensate perhaps for life, but not for injuries?

I said that it should be the difference between a healthy child and a deformed child (for damages) because she wanted a child (unlike in cattanach), so she would have had a child anyway, his negligence merely meant that she had a *deformed* child...?

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by ND
What do you usually have to do in exams and assessments throughout law?

They invariably include a problem question, where you need to demonstrate how effectively you can apply the law to the facts and so on. Occasionally an additional essay response is required as well, and tends to demand a critical analysis of one particular area of the law you've been studying.

UNSW 1998 Torts Exam - http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/subjhome/LAWS1061/download/FinalExamS298.doc

Other examples - www.lawskool.com.au

I guess I can post up one of my assignments if you want a real example.

Originally posted by ND
Also, if you're allowed to take in books, wouldn't that be kinda easy (i.e. you just find a similar case) ?

As timmii said, the questions are never straightforward. But even if they were, you wouldn't have nearly enough time to research cases during the exam itself. The vast majority of judgments are pages long, and the core legal principles are not always obvious.

For my contracts exam last semester, I had prepared a list of cases, with each listing accompanied by only one or two lines describing the legal principles enunciated by the case. As concise as that list was (I think the final version was down to three pages), I still wasted valuable time searching for a particular case when I hadn't cross-referenced properly.

General assessment tasks are usually not too difficult, but the exams are INTENSE. You truly have to know the law to do well in them.

Hmm... I had another important point to make, but I've lost it.

Grats on the HD timmii. I missed out by half a mark heh.

 

[Frigid]

Laz, I'm *really* tempted to do the UNSW 98 torts paper atm...

haha, the first question is like something they'll ask in UMAT, except in short answer form... here are my non-chalant answers:

(1). Is the doctor liable to Penelope in negligence?

yes bcoz since the mid-80s there have been a great deal of research into the medical scientific method - one of the products of this is the theory known as Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), where doctors are responsible for cross-checking their diagnosis with the amount of information at the time.

further, if Penelop had the doctor concerned about Jason (and i assume her work duties for him etc), then there is a high probability that those exposed will contract the illnesses.

therefore, IMHO, the doctor was negligent for not investigating the matter further.

(2) Is Asby Ltd liable in negligence to Penelope?

yes, in the fact that it was negligent to those around its vincity, its commitment to the health of society (is that common sense?), evidenced by "sometimes little bits of asbestos fibre can be seen on the ground on the property" between 1975 and 78, when the fact that "asbestos caused asbestosis and mesothelioma, neither of which are contracted in any other way", which has been known since the 60s.

therefore, because of this, XYZ are clearing negligent to the Penelope.

edit: i wanna do law. i really do. lemme in, dean ronny!

 

[Frigid]

asqy, are my answer's SORT OF right?

 

[ND]

Originally posted by Lazarus
They invariably include a problem question, where you need to demonstrate how effectively you can apply the law to the facts and so on. Occasionally an additional essay response is required as well, and tends to demand a critical analysis of one particular area of the law you've been studying.

UNSW 1998 Torts Exam - http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/subjhome/LAWS1061/download/FinalExamS298.doc

Other examples - www.lawskool.com.au

I guess I can post up one of my assignments if you want a real example.

As timmii said, the questions are never straightforward. But even if they were, you wouldn't have nearly enough time to research cases during the exam itself. The vast majority of judgments are pages long, and the core legal principles are not always obvious.

For my contracts exam last semester, I had prepared a list of cases, with each listing accompanied by only one or two lines describing the legal principles enunciated by the case. As concise as that list was (I think the final version was down to three pages), I still wasted valuable time searching for a particular case when I hadn't cross-referenced properly.

General assessment tasks are usually not too difficult, but the exams are INTENSE. You truly have to know the law to do well in them.

Hmm... I had another important point to make, but I've lost it.

Grats on the HD timmii. I missed out by half a mark heh.

Thanks for the info. Are the cases you analyse prescribed by the subject, or do you research them independantly?

 

[timmii]

Haha yes...well done laz...I too also heard! Quite a rumourmill! (thanx btw )

Ooh i also hear u know james matheson! omg i saw him tonite. i love him U're sooo lucky...

P.s why did he drop out of usyd law school?

 

[timmii]

why crestfallen asqy, did u go ok?

 

[timmii]

credit avg is awesome yay asq!

oh dear...what girls now?

 

[timmii]

hmmm spoken by a true SBHS-er

lol frigid we're not all that awful

 

[mic]

Originally posted by Frigid

girls are bad, bad, bad things.

Thanks! Just cos some are bad, doesn't mean we all are, as timmii said. You're just jealous of the fact our school kicks your butt