The Student Room Group

Did anyone do the Law AQA GCSE Exam?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by TheNovellist
They'd better not :eek:

im actually hoping to get an A in law..i was really bad at the start of year 10, i used to get 11/90 and towards the end of the year i was getting 75 and 80/90..hopefully i did better in unit 1 so it'll boost my grade
Original post by TheNovellist
I think they were trying to catch us out with the 11-year-old child and 19-year-old adult thing. It didn't work tho ;D And yeah, the stem material is so flippin' annoying! We're trying to show what we know and they just copy the textbook down for us? I'd much prefer to have no stem and have the grade boundaries lowered a tiny bit!


Yeah, I think the clue was that they bolded the "both" in asking about the claims, I went with the 19 year olds claim would probably fail as there were warning signs put up, covering the OLA 1984, but a the 5 year olds claim could be successful; as he could not be expected to read the sign and the area was left in a dangerous state, contrary to the same act.
Original post by _mk
im actually hoping to get an A in law..i was really bad at the start of year 10, i used to get 11/90 and towards the end of the year i was getting 75 and 80/90..hopefully i did better in unit 1 so it'll boost my grade
Started in year 11. Me too - unit 1 around 82/3, unit 2 68-ish.
Original post by Typhoon99
Yeah, I think the clue was that they bolded the "both" in asking about the claims, I went with the 19 year olds claim would probably fail as there were warning signs put up, covering the OLA 1984, but a the 5 year olds claim could be successful; as he could not be expected to read the sign and the area was left in a dangerous state, contrary to the same act.

Yeah, so did I. There is evidently a higher duty owed to children than to adults per the 1984 OLA. Occupiers are thus expected to take greater care, children can be allured per Cook v Midland and can gain prescriptive rights. The adult he was with could be argued to be incompetent as he did not have the discernment to not take a child onto the property contrary to Phipps.
Reply 24
Original post by TheNovellist
Yeah, so did I. There is evidently a higher duty owed to children than to adults per the 1984 OLA. Occupiers are thus expected to take greater care, children can be allured per Cook v Midland and can gain prescriptive rights. The adult he was with could be argued to be incompetent as he did not have the discernment to not take a child onto the property contrary to Phipps.


did you do tort law??
Original post by _mk
did you do tort law??
Yeah - did u? Criminal and tort :smile:
Reply 26
Original post by TheNovellist
Yeah - did u? Criminal and tort :smile:


criminal and family :redface:
Cool :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest