[Theflyingbarney]

I only need a D to get an A overall, but I can't get an A* anymore, so I'm not too worried about this exam. Despite the fact that it's my degree subject. At Cambridge.

Ok, so I'm worried now!

I think I'm OK for section C, I can pretty much make that up as I go along and get a half-decent mark, but I still don't know half the cases for section B - vicarious, economic loss and product liability being the worst offenders.

It's my last exam though, so have put off revision for now until my other 5 are out the way.

[AlexandraRose]

(Original post by Clare1994)
i'm meant to learn all three but i really don't know how to do the justice essay and it's already come up in every paper since the new spec

Oh, i'm not doing justice, i'm doing judicial creativity, morality & fault based liability.
The only problem I have is not having enough time, I write too slow.

[Clare1994]

(Original post by AlexandraRose)
Oh, i'm not doing justice, i'm doing judicial creativity, morality & fault based liability.
The only problem I have is not having enough time, I write too slow.

Time isn't as bad as on the AS papers like for this it's 2 hours and our teacher suggested 30mins for the first 2 and then a hour on the long ass essay which seems like plenty of time most of the people in my class can right around a side in 10mins

[Clare1994]

(Original post by Martha=help pls)
Yeah I have been doing that quite a bit. I'm just wondering whether we need to know everything. You know how we can predict the kind of questions they may ask in unit 3 for reform. Would that be the same as it is for this section?

yeah pretty much if you look at the spec there tends to be like 3 questions they can ask for each one but all the questions are similar so if you make a model essay it's usually really easy to tweak to fit the question given in the actual exam.

[AlexandraRose]

(Original post by Clare1994)
Time isn't as bad as on the AS papers like for this it's 2 hours and our teacher suggested 30mins for the first 2 and then a hour on the long ass essay which seems like plenty of time most of the people in my class can right around a side in 10mins

Yeah, I think an hour for the essay is reasonable.
But in the mocks I've done on the shorter questions, I never get past duty because my intros are just so long.
I think I just need to cut certain bits out.

[Theturnbull9]

(Original post by Clare1994)
Time isn't as bad as on the AS papers like for this it's 2 hours and our teacher suggested 30mins for the first 2 and then a hour on the long ass essay which seems like plenty of time most of the people in my class can right around a side in 10mins

Yeh the hour for 15 mins planning and 45 minutes writing

[Bethan0x]

I hope law & justice appears :'(

[Clare1994]

(Original post by AlexandraRose)
Yeah, I think an hour for the essay is reasonable.
But in the mocks I've done on the shorter questions, I never get past duty because my intros are just so long.
I think I just need to cut certain bits out.

You don't have to talk about duty in every question? Usually you only have to talk about it in psychiatric harm cases, in cases where it may be consumer protection or negligence or in medical negligence, i think. The rest i don't think you have to talk about it...

[Clare1994]

(Original post by Bethan0x)
I hope law & justice appears :'(

not likely come up in all three papers since the new spec what other two are you learning for the 35 marker?

[AlexandraRose]

(Original post by Clare1994)
You don't have to talk about duty in every question? Usually you only have to talk about it in psychiatric harm cases, in cases where it may be consumer protection or negligence or in medical negligence, i think. The rest i don't think you have to talk about it...

Yeah, they're only ones i've practiced so far lol.
I just mean my introductions of the tort and the requirements are usually so long I never finish a whole question.

[Pensivedore]

I hope it's Law and Morals or Judicial Creativity.

[Clare1994]

(Original post by AlexandraRose)
Yeah, they're only ones i've practiced so far lol.
I just mean my introductions of the tort and the requirements are usually so long I never finish a whole question.

Oh right well you don't have to go through some parts thoroughly unless there is a problem with that part of law in the scenario.

[AlexandraRose]

(Original post by Clare1994)
Oh right well you don't have to go through some parts thoroughly unless there is a problem with that part of law in the scenario.

Yeah, good point.
I have a tendency to explain the death out of every point and case lol.

[Clare1994]

(Original post by AlexandraRose)
Yeah, good point.
I have a tendency to explain the death out of every point and case lol.

Haha don't need long explanations of cases either haha usually i pretty much put the name of the case and the point of law made in it

[govarkarim]

(Original post by Theflyingbarney)
I only need a D to get an A overall, but I can't get an A* anymore, so I'm not too worried about this exam. Despite the fact that it's my degree subject. At Cambridge.

Ok, so I'm worried now!

I think I'm OK for section C, I can pretty much make that up as I go along and get a half-decent mark, but I still don't know half the cases for section B - vicarious, economic loss and product liability being the worst offenders.

It's my last exam though, so have put off revision for now until my other 5 are out the way.

I'm in the same boat.... Tort law is soo much and soon many cases to remember.

[Bethan0x]

(Original post by Clare1994)
not likely come up in all three papers since the new spec what other two are you learning for the 35 marker?

Law & Morals, Law & Fault.

[Martha=help pls]

(Original post by Clare1994)
yeah pretty much if you look at the spec there tends to be like 3 questions they can ask for each one but all the questions are similar so if you make a model essay it's usually really easy to tweak to fit the question given in the actual exam.

Okay so here are some question from the past. I understand the first part of the question. It's the second part I am not sure whether what they are asking is the same thing. Is it the same?
June 08
Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules. Consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules.
June 07
Explain the similarities and differences between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
June 06
Explain the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should seek to uphold moral values.

Thank you for your help =]

[Clare1994]

(Original post by Martha=help pls)
Okay so here are some question from the past. I understand the first part of the question. It's the second part I am not sure whether what they are asking is the same thing. Is it the same?
June 08
Discuss the nature of legal and moral rules. Consider whether the law does and should reflect moral rules.
June 07
Explain the similarities and differences between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law does and should enforce moral values.
June 06
Explain the relationship between law and morals. Consider the extent to which the law should seek to uphold moral values.

Thank you for your help =]

It's the second part where you have to tweak your answer, you still use the same content it's more the evaluation you have to change to suit the question.
the first two are very similar and likely to have pretty much the same answer but with the last question you talk about how the law does uphold morals and then say the law should or shouldn't seek to uphold morals due to the examples used.
Hope that made sense.

[Clare1994]

I don't like psychiatric harm! Some of the cases contradict themselves...
In Simmons v British Steel the claimant suffered a depressive illness due to a skin condition which was caused by shock and anger after a physical injury... The main point of this case is that the type of injury doesn't has to be foreseeable.
Yet in Rothwell v Chemical and insulating Co Ltd where claimants were exposed to asbestos and got scarring on their lungs which show that they may be at risk of asbestos-related illness leading one of the claimants to go into depression.
Yet in this case it was held that there could not be reasonably forseeable that the claimant would suffer psychiatric harm due to exposure of asbestos....
Any clue what the difference is?

[daizeee]

(Original post by Theturnbull9)
Hey!

I'm doing Law + Morality, Fault and Judicial Creativity. Hopefully Fault will come up this year it wasn't on last years. But apparently it doesn't follow a pattern! :/

my teacher said that fault and balancing conflicting interests are likely to come up he was gonna risk only teaching those 2 but decided to teach morality just in case, im focusing on those 2 and gonna memorise a plan for morality after i've finished all my revision I think fault is quite straight forward so would be gutted if it doesnt come up