[The West Wing]

If any of you are feeling down about exams and need a pep talk I'm available by PM or by phone/skype. I've been there and survived.

[Tortious]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
lol fun new game guys, don't look at criminal for a good while before the exam, waste the day on which you were supposed to go back through the cases, and see what you can remember.

Ditto this for Land.

Still, as for Contract, come at me bro!



(The quality of YouTube videos returned by a search for "come at me bro" is surprisingly poor... )

[Tortious]

Awww TWW...

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
lol fun new game guys, don't look at criminal for a good while before the exam, waste the day on which you were supposed to go back through the cases, and see what you can remember.

It'll all be fine, I'm sure. Good luck to you and to:

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
...

(Original post by Cast.Iron)
...

(Original post by The West Wing)
If any of you are feeling down about exams and need a pep talk I'm available by PM or by phone/skype. I've been there and survived.

Please tell me equity always feels like mental torture. I am not entirely sure what I spent 3 hours writing but I'm not convinced I could have done worse even if I'd written my answer in Russian! I have only met one lawyer even halfway happy with the paper and her words were "I knew it was going to be really tough. It was a little bit nicer than I'd imagined". I've never even heard of contractarian theory and they set a whole essay on it!

(Original post by Tortious)
Ditto this for Land.

Still, as for Contract, come at me bro!



(The quality of YouTube videos returned by a search for "come at me bro" is surprisingly poor... )

Best of luck tomorrow afternoon. 'Twill all be good.

[Tortious]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Best of luck tomorrow afternoon. 'Twill all be good.

Hmph. Just seen your post in the stress thread - I'm not feeling particularly hopeful anymore (mainly about International). I don't feel particularly hopeless though, just:



(I need to start reading a dictionary or something - I think Reddit's affecting my ability to express myself in words!)

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by Tortious)
Hmph. Just seen your post in the stress thread - I'm not feeling particularly hopeful anymore (mainly about International). I don't feel particularly hopeless though, just:



(I need to start reading a dictionary or something - I think Reddit's affecting my ability to express myself in words!)

I think contract is bound to be nicer - we think we had DF and RN setting our paper (I swear MO appeared in my room!) and they're notorious for being really mean. And the paper was just genuinely difficult. Almost no one liked it.

International will be tough if it's a JC paper but trust me, it can *not* be as bad as that equity paper. I don't think anything can be.

[The West Wing]

(Original post by gethsemane342)


Please tell me equity always feels like mental torture. I am not entirely sure what I spent 3 hours writing but I'm not convinced I could have done worse even if I'd written my answer in Russian! I have only met one lawyer even halfway happy with the paper and her words were "I knew it was going to be really tough. It was a little bit nicer than I'd imagined". I've never even heard of contractarian theory and they set a whole essay on it!

Equity is always a nightmare. I didn't understand Q1 on the paper last year even though I'm sure I revised that topic.

Remember if it's a hard paper they'll mark more generously. I think difficult papers benefit incisive people like yourself.

Also the papers I thought I chatted bs through were always the ones I did best in. You'd be surprised what they consider to be a praiseworthy essay.

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by The West Wing)
Equity is always a nightmare. I didn't understand Q1 on the paper last year even though I'm sure I revised that topic.

Remember if it's a hard paper they'll mark more generously. I think difficult papers benefit incisive people like yourself.

Also the papers I thought I chatted bs through were always the ones I did best in. You'd be surprised what they consider to be a praiseworthy essay.

Ha ha, I didn't do the contractarian theory question. I have a policy of not answering any question for which I can't work out what it's asking me (This apparently let me dodge a bullet as I also opted not to answer the fiduciary/tracing question on the basis that I couldn't work out what the first 5 lines meant. I'm told this question turned out to be as insanely difficult as I suspected)

I did spot one point no one else seems to have but I think that was it in terms of brilliance off me (I've also realised that in spotting it, I assumed too much from the result and missed something out as a result). And that was an accident.

[The West Wing]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Ha ha, I didn't do the contractarian theory question. I have a policy of not answering any question for which I can't work out what it's asking me (This apparently let me dodge a bullet as I also opted not to answer the fiduciary/tracing question on the basis that I couldn't work out what the first 5 lines meant. I'm told this question turned out to be as insanely difficult as I suspected)

I did spot one point no one else seems to have but I think that was it in terms of brilliance off me (I've also realised that in spotting it, I assumed too much from the result and missed something out as a result). And that was an accident.

Did knowing receipt and dishonest assistance come up this year? I remember it being my favourite topic and was very disappointed when it didn't appear

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by The West Wing)
Did knowing receipt and dishonest assistance come up this year? I remember it being my favourite topic and was very disappointed when it didn't appear

As far as I know (appear to have misplaced my copy of the paper), knowing receipt didn't come up at all and dishonest assistance cropped up once as a very small side-issue (a solicitor advises 2 trustees that it'd be more efficient to change their trust into a charitable trust. This is probably void since it fails as a charity. But the solicitor doesn't actually know any tax or trusts law so probably not dishonest).

Well, I suppose that might be too generalised. They set an essay on constructive trusts. I suppose anyone who was stupid enough to do the question could have considered the "like" liability in dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. Although I doubt anyone knew enough to answer it, seeing as how they barely taught it to us...

(They also didn't set anything on Sinclair v Versailles [2011]. I mean, I know everyone expected an essay so they might have not wanted to do that but it was a bit extreme placing so much emphasis on it in the year and then not setting anything on it. Except the constructive trusts essay which didn't really engage with the case! That's why it was such a hard exam - they literally took everything we were likely to really revise, shoved it to one side and threw in all sorts of things no one had bothered mentioning to us)

[The West Wing]

How were your exams today kids?

[TimmonaPortella]

Problem questions were good, essays were horrible, I messed up both but to a greater extent the latter

[Doughnuts!!]

2 really good answers (one problem Q, one essay), 2 absolutely horrible.

Can I plz has 2:1?

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
2 really good answers (one problem Q, one essay), 2 absolutely horrible.

Can I plz has 2:1?

impossible attempts, man, ffs.

I went, "this is the law" for about a side (my writing is very small but that's still not a lot I realise), and then had no idea what to say about how good it was, so I just kept saying things like, well social protection, but on the other thoughtcrime, but, but... zero structure, zero actual merit.

The Gnango question I'm pretty sure I missed a conspiracy and didn't put in the point on affray which I really wanted to.

Did you do the loss of control question? that was a great question

[Doughnuts!!]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
impossible attempts, man, ffs.

I went, "this is the law" for about a side (my writing is very small but that's still not a lot I realise), and then had no idea what to say about how good it was, so I just kept saying things like, well social protection, but on the other thoughtcrime, but, but... zero structure, zero actual merit.

Hah, this was me for basic/specific intent...except I didn't actually properly know the law on it. My entire essay was just over two sides and made absolutely no sense at all.

The Gnango question I'm pretty sure I missed a conspiracy and didn't put in the point on affray which I really wanted to.

Did you do the loss of control question? that was a great question

Nope, did the last theft one. Missed out a few minor points but did it relatively well!

Still, I've realised that I no longer care how these exams go, as long as I can just get them over and done with.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
Hah, this was me for basic/specific intent...except I didn't actually properly know the law on it. My entire essay was just over two sides and made absolutely no sense at all.



Nope, did the last theft one. Missed out a few minor points but did it relatively well!

Still, I've realised that I no longer care how these exams go, as long as I can just get them over and done with.

If it helps, the question was actually about impossible inchoate liability, I just made it about attempts because there's nothing really to say about the others. Not sure how that'll go down.

same. I've started telling myself that the lord chief justice got a 2.ii. at uni. therefore, screw it.

[Tortious]

(Original post by The West Wing)
How were your exams today kids?

Contract was pretty bad. You and Geth will have done NA's 2011, right? It wasn't him this year - we think it was JOS. Either way, the style was very different! There were a lot more problems (although some were essay/problem hybrids) and none of them were discrete. I started with question 2 and instantly regretted it - it was literally 2/3 of a page long and was about a law firm making contracts with a catering company. The issues it raised included:

• Clause allowing substitution of items
• Clause limiting liability
• Loss of a chance to sign a contract
• Interpretation of a clause (this was more of a tort point - it was about whether someone who worked "cash in hand" was an employee and therefore covered by the clause when he spilled wine on a partner!)
• Privity: law student Jeroboam () suing the caterers for a bottle of wine after a "drinks reception" (there may have been a misrep point here and potential to sue the firm since only the firm had told guests that there'd be wine - but I wasn't sure since I wasn't planning to do a misrep problem so I hadn't revised it in detail... )
• Exclusion of liability for personal injury: UCTA 1977
• Privity again: law student with an allergy suing for being made violently ill

I spent an hour on it (I know, I know ) and still don't feel I did it justice!

[triste91]

Contract was beyond a nightmare!

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
impossible attempts, man, ffs.

I went, "this is the law" for about a side (my writing is very small but that's still not a lot I realise), and then had no idea what to say about how good it was, so I just kept saying things like, well social protection, but on the other thoughtcrime, but, but... zero structure, zero actual merit.

The Gnango question I'm pretty sure I missed a conspiracy and didn't put in the point on affray which I really wanted to.

Did you do the loss of control question? that was a great question

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
Hah, this was me for basic/specific intent...except I didn't actually properly know the law on it. My entire essay was just over two sides and made absolutely no sense at all.



Nope, did the last theft one. Missed out a few minor points but did it relatively well!

Still, I've realised that I no longer care how these exams go, as long as I can just get them over and done with.

If it makes you guys feel better, I personally know someone who got a 2.1 on criminal. In the paper, he accused someone of murder. Unfortunately, no one in the question had died.

(He would have gotten a first overall if he hadn't done that so a bit gutting...)

(Original post by Tortious)
Contract was pretty bad. You and Geth will have done NA's 2011, right? It wasn't him this year - we think it was JOS. Either way, the style was very different! There were a lot more problems (although some were essay/problem hybrids) and none of them were discrete. I started with question 2 and instantly regretted it - it was literally 2/3 of a page long and was about a law firm making contracts with a catering company. The issues it raised included:

• Clause allowing substitution of items
• Clause limiting liability
• Loss of a chance to sign a contract
• Interpretation of a clause (this was more of a tort point - it was about whether someone who worked "cash in hand" was an employee and therefore covered by the clause when he spilled wine on a partner!)
• Privity: law student Jeroboam () suing the caterers for a bottle of wine after a "drinks reception" (there may have been a misrep point here and potential to sue the firm since only the firm had told guests that there'd be wine - but I wasn't sure since I wasn't planning to do a misrep problem so I hadn't revised it in detail... )
• Exclusion of liability for personal injury: UCTA 1977
• Privity again: law student with an allergy suing for being made violently ill

I spent an hour on it (I know, I know ) and still don't feel I did it justice!

Oh dear, that does sound like quite a question (though NA didn't generally do discrete topics. That's why his papers were generally considered hard. What he did was ask the *same* questions so you could work out which topics were likely to go together.)

Kind of tough on the employee point! I know you do it in tort but interpretation of contract of employment is a labour law topic (and trust me, there is quite a bit more to it than you're told in tort. Tort basically says "control. Oh if they have their own uniform, maybe not". I'd argue the answer is that if there is no mutual obligation, he isn't a contractual employee. However, there is a contract to work and that would give rise to liability, depending on what the clause said)

I think timing issues are more common than you'd think, don't worry. From what I heard, a lot of people didn't like the paper so it'll be generously marked. And contract's always a tough one.

(And PQs sounds like JO. When she supervised us in first year, she told us not to do essays and said for practical subjects, PQs were much better. And she liked to throw in random trains of thoughts in discussions so wouldn't surprise me if this was her paper.)

(Original post by triste91)
Contract was beyond a nightmare!

I've heard it was hard. Don't worry, it'll all be uphill from here!

Alternatively, maybe me, you and Tortious can form a club. It can be called the "What the hell was that first exam about?" club

[Tortious]

(Original post by triste91)
Contract was beyond a nightmare!

Which college are you at, out of interest? We've probably met in person but not realised.

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Kind of tough on the employee point! I know you do it in tort but interpretation of contract of employment is a labour law topic (and trust me, there is quite a bit more to it than you're told in tort. Tort basically says "control. Oh if they have their own uniform, maybe not". I'd argue the answer is that if there is no mutual obligation, he isn't a contractual employee. However, there is a contract to work and that would give rise to liability, depending on what the clause said)

Mmm. The terms said there's a limit of 2 x contract price on liability, and "these conditions cover Luscious Ltd (caterers), its employees and any subcontractors whom it employs in the performance of the contract". The guy in question (F) is just a friend of one of the Luscious staff, but the manager of Luscious has offered him £10 for helping out.

I didn't really know what to say except that he probably wasn't an employee and yet was likely to fall within the terms if they were broadly interpreted. I was careful not to specify what kind of individual I thought he was though!