the more i think about my law exams the more i hope ive just done badly by my standards since im used to top marks and i havent actually done badly lmao
Does anybody know how many marks I could get if I said that the doctor broke the chain of causation? It is clearly wrong by reading everybody's comments just wondering if I would still get any and how many if I had done the actus reus correctly
Does anybody know how many marks I could get if I said that the doctor broke the chain of causation? It is clearly wrong by reading everybody's comments just wondering if I would still get any and how many if I had done the actus reus correctly
You haven't talked about the mens rea of the offence? And incorrectly applied causation...
In my opinion I would say that shows 'some' understanding so between 3-4 marks. With no MR I'd say its more likely to be 3/10.
Finally got around to doing the full mark scheme! . I'm an A2 student with a lot of exams to revise for so please appreciate the time it took me to do this.- rep if you please :-)
I'm not AQA, this is information I've gathered from textbooks/previous mark schemes.
You haven't talked about the mens rea of the offence? And incorrectly applied causation...
In my opinion I would say that shows 'some' understanding so between 3-4 marks. With no MR I'd say its more likely to be 3/10.
Well I was told if it breaks the chain to just stop at that point, I know it's wrong now but that's why I didn't do the men's rea because I did causation wrong, I guess that's not too bad considering I did it wrong
Did u check the paper for the DOC question? Cos I think its Chris and not Dan
Hi, we didn't know whether it was Chris or Dan :-) so when someone finds out for sure I'll change it if necessary! The same principles would still apply though...
RF due to giving someone contaminated food they may become ill. Proximity between D and C in space and time. FJR no grounds to exclude liability :-)
So even if you talked about Dan and Chris, Dan and Euan, Chris and Euan I think you'll still get the same outcome more or less...
no i just said there was Actual breach for Gareth, and then said there was no breach for Harry. I felt like two lots of breach to talk about after defining both before, was loads for 8 marks.
With that question, I read it as a 'presume that there was a breach' for both Gareth and Harry, meaning that we had to conclude that there was a breach for both of them, not just one. I did actual breach for Gareth, and anticipatory breach for Harry in order to cover both types of breach (because that is likely to have been what the examiners were looking for, and a comparison of the differences between the two types of breach). Thought I'd input because hardly anyone seems to have done civil!
With that question, I read it as a 'presume that there was a breach' for both Gareth and Harry, meaning that we had to conclude that there was a breach for both of them, not just one. I did actual breach for Gareth, and anticipatory breach for Harry in order to cover both types of breach (because that is likely to have been what the examiners were looking for, and a comparison of the differences between the two types of breach). Thought I'd input because hardly anyone seems to have done civil!