Attention prospective law students
Hi,
just wanted to provide opportunity for any prospective law applicants to ask questions about the degree etc
I am a 1st year undergrad at uni of Oxford and am really really struggling, predominantly because I find the course mind-numbingly dull.
I just want to impress that a law degree should not be considered without serious thought and investigation into what it will involve. Please don't go into this degree without asking a current student to show you exactly what they do each week. I am more than happy to do this for anyone, as i wish someone had done it for me
This is not meant to be a pessimistic post- rather realistic!
Hit me up if you have any Qs/ want to chat!
just wanted to provide opportunity for any prospective law applicants to ask questions about the degree etc
I am a 1st year undergrad at uni of Oxford and am really really struggling, predominantly because I find the course mind-numbingly dull.
I just want to impress that a law degree should not be considered without serious thought and investigation into what it will involve. Please don't go into this degree without asking a current student to show you exactly what they do each week. I am more than happy to do this for anyone, as i wish someone had done it for me
This is not meant to be a pessimistic post- rather realistic!
Hit me up if you have any Qs/ want to chat!
Original post by anonymousanna
Hi,
just wanted to provide opportunity for any prospective law applicants to ask questions about the degree etc
I am a 1st year undergrad at uni of Oxford and am really really struggling, predominantly because I find the course mind-numbingly dull.
I just want to impress that a law degree should not be considered without serious thought and investigation into what it will involve. Please don't go into this degree without asking a current student to show you exactly what they do each week. I am more than happy to do this for anyone, as i wish someone had done it for me
This is not meant to be a pessimistic post- rather realistic!
Hit me up if you have any Qs/ want to chat!
just wanted to provide opportunity for any prospective law applicants to ask questions about the degree etc
I am a 1st year undergrad at uni of Oxford and am really really struggling, predominantly because I find the course mind-numbingly dull.
I just want to impress that a law degree should not be considered without serious thought and investigation into what it will involve. Please don't go into this degree without asking a current student to show you exactly what they do each week. I am more than happy to do this for anyone, as i wish someone had done it for me
This is not meant to be a pessimistic post- rather realistic!
Hit me up if you have any Qs/ want to chat!
Hi can u show me some of ur work that u do ? Please
Hi,
I'm currently considering dropping out of my uni offers to take a gap year and apply for law- with Oxford being one of my choices...
Is there any chance you could let me know a bit about the following? Sorry in advance for the list.... :/
What specifically do you find dull about the course? what does your average week entail? how many contact hours a week do you have and are they lectures/tutorials/seminars? How many hours on average do you do a day/week of independent reading/study? and if you don't mind saying, what college?
Sorry for the massive list!
I'm currently considering dropping out of my uni offers to take a gap year and apply for law- with Oxford being one of my choices...
Is there any chance you could let me know a bit about the following? Sorry in advance for the list.... :/
What specifically do you find dull about the course? what does your average week entail? how many contact hours a week do you have and are they lectures/tutorials/seminars? How many hours on average do you do a day/week of independent reading/study? and if you don't mind saying, what college?
Sorry for the massive list!
I'm not a prospective law student, but I am interested in the questions that have been posed. Sorry to hear that you're struggling, and I hope that you are seeking the support that is available in Oxford. I did once study land law and at first found it dull and impenetrable, but in the end persistence paid off and I turned it round. (I'm not saying I became passionate about easements and strict settlements…).
hi guys! sorry I've been well busy this week... reading, would you believe!
Eleanor27 I also took a gap year, dropping out of my uni offers in year 13 and reapplying during my gap year. It's certainly an easier way to do things and, well, you get to have a year off! Gap year was the best thing i ever did. I would also recommend delaying uni if you're unsure what to apply for. Even by two years. This is better than embarking on a course and deciding you want to start again.
I'll try to answer your questions and then give a sample of the kind of thing we do each week.
- What specifically do you find dull about the course?
If at Oxford, your course will start with criminal law and constitutional law. These are both relatively interesting subjects- criminal law involving lots of gritty cases which call for massive philosophical questions and thought provoking ideas and constitutional law being relatively interesting for someone who has never studies politics etc. Its s said that these are by far the most interesting topics, but they are done by christmas of first year. Next is roman law- mind numbingly dull, intricate and irrelevant. Contract law is what it sounds like. I spend roughly 40 hours per week (or should) trawling though a reading list titled, for example, "contents of contracts".
The reading list might look like this.
Content & Reading
3.1Interpretation/Construction* Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society[1998]1 WLR 896, 912-913* Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38OceanbulkShipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSC 44* Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50* Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] 2 WLR 1593 esp[14]-[23] 3.2Implied Terms* The Moorcock (1889)14 PD 64* Liverpool CCv Irwin [1977]AC 239Scally vSouthern Health & Social Services Bd [1991]4 All ER 563* Sale ofGoods Act 1979, ss 12-15A ** Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss 1 – 3, 5, 9 – 16, 18(goods contracts); ss 49, 50, 51 – 57 (services contracts) s. 59.* AttorneyGeneral of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10[16]-[27]Yam Seng Pte Ltd (A company registered inSingapore) v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) NB [123]-[153] on implied term of good faith,
[186]-[192] on reliance damagesMid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust vCompass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (t/a Medirest) [2013]EWCA Civ 200 [77]-[92]MediterraneanSalvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc [2009] EWCA Civ531Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Parisbas Securities ServicesTrust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843 3.3 Exclusion / ExemptionClauses (i) Incorporation(a) Signature* L’ Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394* Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951]1 KB 805Grogan v Robin [1996] CLC 1127. Auld LJ (b) NoticeParker v South East Railway Co (1877)2 CPD 416* Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940]1 KB 532* Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949]1 KB 532* Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]2 QB 163* Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1988]1 All ER 348 (c) Course of dealing* McCutcheon v MacBrayne [1964]1 All ER 430Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972]2 QB 71British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] QB303 (ii) ConstructionAlderslade vHendon Laundry [1945] KB189CanadaSteamships Lines Ltd v R [1952] AC 192Mir Steel UKLimited v Christopher Morris and ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1397SuisseAtlantique v Rotterdamsche Kolen [1967] 1AC 361Hollier vRambler Motors – see above* PhotoProductions v Securicor [1980]1 All ER 556* Ailsa CraigFishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]1 WLR 964* GeorgeMitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983]2 All ER 737 (iii) Statutory Control ofexemption clauses & unfair terms(a) Legislative control inNON-CONSUMER CONTEXT* UnfairContract Terms Act 1977 ss 1-14, Schs 1&2 (as amended by ConsumerRights Act 2015)* Phillips Products v Hyland [1987]2 All ER 620*Thompson v Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987]2 All ER 631*R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988]1 All ER 847* Smith v EricBush [1989]2 All ER 514StewartGill v Horatio Myer [1992]2 QB 600*St Albans DC v International Computers [1996]4 All ER 481WatfordElectronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] All ER (Comm) 696 (b) Legislative control in CONSUMERCONTEXT** Directive on UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts ([url="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0013:EN[excludedFace]h[/excludedFace]TML"]93/13/EEC of 5 April1993, OJ L95/29)** Consumer Rights Act2015 ss 31, 57, 61 – 71, 73, 75 – 76; Sched.2 (On the background to the2015 Act Pt 2 see Law Commission, Scottish Law Commission, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts: Advice to the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills (March 2013) available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/unfair_terms_in_consumer_contracts_advice.pdf) * The Office of FairTrading v Abbey National Plc and 7 Others [2009]UKSC 6, [2009] 3 WLR 1215 (see (2010) 126 LQR 157)* Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis deCatalunya, Tarragona<r> <i>iManresa of 14 March 2013 (C-415/11)<r>* Kásler v OTP JelzálogbankZrt of 30 April 2014 (C-26/13) Matei v SC Volksbank RomâniaSA of 26 February 2015 (C-143/13).Van Hove v CNP Assurances SAof 23 April 2015 (C-96/14)* ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015] UKSC 67, [2015] 3 W.L.R.1373. Articles etcAdamsand Brownsword, “The Unfair Contract Terms Act: A Decade of Discretion” (1988) 104 LQR 94Bright, “Winningthe Battle Against Unfair Terms” (2000) 20LS 331Peden,“Policy Concerns Behind Implication of Terms in Law” (2001) 117 LQR 459- ON PAPER?LordNicholls, “My Kingdom for a Horse: The Meaning of Words” (2005) 121 LQR 577Peel,“Whither Contra Proferentem?” in ContractTerms (eds Burrows and Peel, 2007) 53Bright,“Unfairness and the Consumer Contract Regulations” in Contract Terms (eds Burrows and Peel, 2007) 173Beale,“Exclusion and Limitation Clauses in Business Contracts: Transparancy” in Contract Terms (eds Burrows and Peel,2007) 191Micklitzand Reich, “The Court and Sleeping Beauty: the Revival of the Unfair ContractTerms Directive (UCTD)” (2014) 51 CMLR771.Forreference: H. Beale (gen. ed.) Chitty onContracts (32nd edn., 2015) Ch. 38 Consumer Contracts (by S.Whittaker) paras 38-201 et seq.(discussing both the “old law” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999 and the “new law” under Pt 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Ok the formatting is crap, sorry. This is a hell of a lot to get through. Especially when it is so absolutely dry and mind numbing.Each case is roughly 60 pages long and whilst you don't have to read all of it, the process of finding what you need to read is just so long and dry. If you are interested in when 'finance PLC did a merger with company X and the exclusion clause wasn't sufficient under the Unfair contract terms act 199whatever to mitigate breach of duty of care' then this is the course for you.
I spend every day regretting that i don't study something engaging and personable and nuanced. I would urge you to consider studying something else.
If you really want to practise law, the GDL is a much better option.Articles are also mind numbing. I will attach one example of a contract article. And yes, you do have to read all these..Law really is dull. I am trying to be HONEST with you. University should be about exploring something that ignites a passion in you. This is cheesy but realistic. You will spend at least 3 years reading SO MUCH and this is such a long time to be feeling like its a chore.
Yes I understand i am incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to study at such an incredible university, and every day try to persevere and make the most of it. After all i am here and someone else isn't. But this doesn't change the fact that the subject matter is dry and highly difficult, and to do well you have to be interested, which i am just no.
Please please please please triple check before you start studying.
Bug some law student, as them to actually meet up with you and show you what work they do.
PLEASE. Law students one in a few categories; born lawyers who have had their signet rings and wigs on since the womb, passionate human rights wannabes whose visions will undoubtedly be clouded by the lure of a six figure salary in the city, and the disillusioned, depressed, soulless masses (a category into which i fit). Oxford itself is both fabulous and terrible. I love and hate it for reasons i don't have time to go into. This is from the perspective not of a recluse but someone who is involved in rowing, drama, the JCR and going out 2-3 times per week!
Anyway, moving on...
- what does your average week entail?
- how many contact hours a week do you have and are they lectures/tutorials/seminars?
- How many hours on average do you do a day/week of independent reading/study?
Weeks vary. Average though I'd say we have two tutorials (so two essays to write) per week, one or two seminars and about 8 lectures. I hate lectures though so don't bother.
We have two reading lists per week, each of which, if read properly, would take a month each. But i don't read them properly coz i go out and have fun and do sport and have friends. Oh and its mind numbingly dull.
Realistically you're looking at aiming for 6 hours a day of reading then toward the end of the week you compile your essays. When i say end of week, for me this is the night before the cute at about 3 am
Your question on independent study... LAW IS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT STUDY. OXFORD IS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT STUDY. Lectures are mainly pretty crap, and this isn't teaching but being talked at. Seminars are the closest you will get to a class, but even here, it is just the tutor asking YOU what you are already expected to have learned. Similarly, tutorials are either going through your essay which you have already written, or the tutor testing your knowledge on what you have already learned. Yeah.
- and if you don't mind saying, what college?
I'm at the wonderful pembroke college. Love it to bits!
I hope this is somewhat helpful. Thanks guys for your concern- yeah the oxford support system is amazing but not really for what I'm feeling aha!
feel free to hit me up with any more questions.
I know this isn't the most optimistic message but i am being entirely truthful and wish someone did this for me. PLEASE thing again and again. Don't stop thinking. TRY AND DO A WEEKS READING LIST. PLEASE!!! 3 years is a bloody long time.!!
good luck xxxxx
ARTICLES ATTACHED BELOW !!!
Eleanor27 I also took a gap year, dropping out of my uni offers in year 13 and reapplying during my gap year. It's certainly an easier way to do things and, well, you get to have a year off! Gap year was the best thing i ever did. I would also recommend delaying uni if you're unsure what to apply for. Even by two years. This is better than embarking on a course and deciding you want to start again.
I'll try to answer your questions and then give a sample of the kind of thing we do each week.
- What specifically do you find dull about the course?
If at Oxford, your course will start with criminal law and constitutional law. These are both relatively interesting subjects- criminal law involving lots of gritty cases which call for massive philosophical questions and thought provoking ideas and constitutional law being relatively interesting for someone who has never studies politics etc. Its s said that these are by far the most interesting topics, but they are done by christmas of first year. Next is roman law- mind numbingly dull, intricate and irrelevant. Contract law is what it sounds like. I spend roughly 40 hours per week (or should) trawling though a reading list titled, for example, "contents of contracts".
The reading list might look like this.
Content & Reading
3.1Interpretation/Construction* Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society[1998]1 WLR 896, 912-913* Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38OceanbulkShipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSC 44* Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50* Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] 2 WLR 1593 esp[14]-[23] 3.2Implied Terms* The Moorcock (1889)14 PD 64* Liverpool CCv Irwin [1977]AC 239Scally vSouthern Health & Social Services Bd [1991]4 All ER 563* Sale ofGoods Act 1979, ss 12-15A ** Consumer Rights Act 2015 ss 1 – 3, 5, 9 – 16, 18(goods contracts); ss 49, 50, 51 – 57 (services contracts) s. 59.* AttorneyGeneral of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10[16]-[27]Yam Seng Pte Ltd (A company registered inSingapore) v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) NB [123]-[153] on implied term of good faith,
[186]-[192] on reliance damagesMid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust vCompass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (t/a Medirest) [2013]EWCA Civ 200 [77]-[92]MediterraneanSalvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc [2009] EWCA Civ531Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Parisbas Securities ServicesTrust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843 3.3 Exclusion / ExemptionClauses (i) Incorporation(a) Signature* L’ Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394* Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951]1 KB 805Grogan v Robin [1996] CLC 1127. Auld LJ (b) NoticeParker v South East Railway Co (1877)2 CPD 416* Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940]1 KB 532* Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949]1 KB 532* Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]2 QB 163* Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1988]1 All ER 348 (c) Course of dealing* McCutcheon v MacBrayne [1964]1 All ER 430Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972]2 QB 71British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] QB303 (ii) ConstructionAlderslade vHendon Laundry [1945] KB189CanadaSteamships Lines Ltd v R [1952] AC 192Mir Steel UKLimited v Christopher Morris and ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1397SuisseAtlantique v Rotterdamsche Kolen [1967] 1AC 361Hollier vRambler Motors – see above* PhotoProductions v Securicor [1980]1 All ER 556* Ailsa CraigFishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]1 WLR 964* GeorgeMitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983]2 All ER 737 (iii) Statutory Control ofexemption clauses & unfair terms(a) Legislative control inNON-CONSUMER CONTEXT* UnfairContract Terms Act 1977 ss 1-14, Schs 1&2 (as amended by ConsumerRights Act 2015)* Phillips Products v Hyland [1987]2 All ER 620*Thompson v Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987]2 All ER 631*R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988]1 All ER 847* Smith v EricBush [1989]2 All ER 514StewartGill v Horatio Myer [1992]2 QB 600*St Albans DC v International Computers [1996]4 All ER 481WatfordElectronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] All ER (Comm) 696 (b) Legislative control in CONSUMERCONTEXT** Directive on UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts ([url="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0013:EN[excludedFace]h[/excludedFace]TML"]93/13/EEC of 5 April1993, OJ L95/29)** Consumer Rights Act2015 ss 31, 57, 61 – 71, 73, 75 – 76; Sched.2 (On the background to the2015 Act Pt 2 see Law Commission, Scottish Law Commission, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts: Advice to the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills (March 2013) available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/unfair_terms_in_consumer_contracts_advice.pdf) * The Office of FairTrading v Abbey National Plc and 7 Others [2009]UKSC 6, [2009] 3 WLR 1215 (see (2010) 126 LQR 157)* Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis deCatalunya, Tarragona<r> <i>iManresa of 14 March 2013 (C-415/11)<r>* Kásler v OTP JelzálogbankZrt of 30 April 2014 (C-26/13) Matei v SC Volksbank RomâniaSA of 26 February 2015 (C-143/13).Van Hove v CNP Assurances SAof 23 April 2015 (C-96/14)* ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015] UKSC 67, [2015] 3 W.L.R.1373. Articles etcAdamsand Brownsword, “The Unfair Contract Terms Act: A Decade of Discretion” (1988) 104 LQR 94Bright, “Winningthe Battle Against Unfair Terms” (2000) 20LS 331Peden,“Policy Concerns Behind Implication of Terms in Law” (2001) 117 LQR 459- ON PAPER?LordNicholls, “My Kingdom for a Horse: The Meaning of Words” (2005) 121 LQR 577Peel,“Whither Contra Proferentem?” in ContractTerms (eds Burrows and Peel, 2007) 53Bright,“Unfairness and the Consumer Contract Regulations” in Contract Terms (eds Burrows and Peel, 2007) 173Beale,“Exclusion and Limitation Clauses in Business Contracts: Transparancy” in Contract Terms (eds Burrows and Peel,2007) 191Micklitzand Reich, “The Court and Sleeping Beauty: the Revival of the Unfair ContractTerms Directive (UCTD)” (2014) 51 CMLR771.Forreference: H. Beale (gen. ed.) Chitty onContracts (32nd edn., 2015) Ch. 38 Consumer Contracts (by S.Whittaker) paras 38-201 et seq.(discussing both the “old law” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999 and the “new law” under Pt 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Ok the formatting is crap, sorry. This is a hell of a lot to get through. Especially when it is so absolutely dry and mind numbing.Each case is roughly 60 pages long and whilst you don't have to read all of it, the process of finding what you need to read is just so long and dry. If you are interested in when 'finance PLC did a merger with company X and the exclusion clause wasn't sufficient under the Unfair contract terms act 199whatever to mitigate breach of duty of care' then this is the course for you.
I spend every day regretting that i don't study something engaging and personable and nuanced. I would urge you to consider studying something else.
If you really want to practise law, the GDL is a much better option.Articles are also mind numbing. I will attach one example of a contract article. And yes, you do have to read all these..Law really is dull. I am trying to be HONEST with you. University should be about exploring something that ignites a passion in you. This is cheesy but realistic. You will spend at least 3 years reading SO MUCH and this is such a long time to be feeling like its a chore.
Yes I understand i am incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to study at such an incredible university, and every day try to persevere and make the most of it. After all i am here and someone else isn't. But this doesn't change the fact that the subject matter is dry and highly difficult, and to do well you have to be interested, which i am just no.
Please please please please triple check before you start studying.
Bug some law student, as them to actually meet up with you and show you what work they do.
PLEASE. Law students one in a few categories; born lawyers who have had their signet rings and wigs on since the womb, passionate human rights wannabes whose visions will undoubtedly be clouded by the lure of a six figure salary in the city, and the disillusioned, depressed, soulless masses (a category into which i fit). Oxford itself is both fabulous and terrible. I love and hate it for reasons i don't have time to go into. This is from the perspective not of a recluse but someone who is involved in rowing, drama, the JCR and going out 2-3 times per week!
Anyway, moving on...
- what does your average week entail?
- how many contact hours a week do you have and are they lectures/tutorials/seminars?
- How many hours on average do you do a day/week of independent reading/study?
Weeks vary. Average though I'd say we have two tutorials (so two essays to write) per week, one or two seminars and about 8 lectures. I hate lectures though so don't bother.
We have two reading lists per week, each of which, if read properly, would take a month each. But i don't read them properly coz i go out and have fun and do sport and have friends. Oh and its mind numbingly dull.
Realistically you're looking at aiming for 6 hours a day of reading then toward the end of the week you compile your essays. When i say end of week, for me this is the night before the cute at about 3 am
Your question on independent study... LAW IS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT STUDY. OXFORD IS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT STUDY. Lectures are mainly pretty crap, and this isn't teaching but being talked at. Seminars are the closest you will get to a class, but even here, it is just the tutor asking YOU what you are already expected to have learned. Similarly, tutorials are either going through your essay which you have already written, or the tutor testing your knowledge on what you have already learned. Yeah.
- and if you don't mind saying, what college?
I'm at the wonderful pembroke college. Love it to bits!
I hope this is somewhat helpful. Thanks guys for your concern- yeah the oxford support system is amazing but not really for what I'm feeling aha!
feel free to hit me up with any more questions.
I know this isn't the most optimistic message but i am being entirely truthful and wish someone did this for me. PLEASE thing again and again. Don't stop thinking. TRY AND DO A WEEKS READING LIST. PLEASE!!! 3 years is a bloody long time.!!
good luck xxxxx
ARTICLES ATTACHED BELOW !!!
(edited 7 years ago)
just to give another example: here are my notes on ONE contract case. I repeat, ONE contract case.
My notes for one weeks topic are often up to 80 size 10 typed pages. and this is for ONE of TWO topics that we study each week!
Also, this is from a very un-conscientious student. I drink several times per week, row most days and do a load of other stuff.
Anyway, here is ONE case!!
* Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525-
Court of Appeal (QBD): Sellers, Upjohn andDavies L.JJ. Lord Denning M.R.(sitting as an Additional Judge of the Queen'sBench Division)-
SUMMARY
Car fraudsters case, held that while communication to the othercontracting party that one is rescinding the contract is normally required, anovert act showing that one is rescinding the contract is sufficient wherecommunication is not possible, at least where the other contracting party is afraudster-
FACTS In the original action of Caldwell v. Motobella Co. Ltd. 1 the plaintiff obtained judgment by default,Paull J. ordering the return of a Jaguar car to the plaintiff or £975, itsvalue, with costs. After the Sheriff of of Hampshire had seized the carpursuant to a writ of delivery in June, 1962, an interpleader summons was heardbefore Master Harwood on July 26, 1962, and an issue was ordered to be triedbetween the claimants, Car & Universal Finance Co. Ltd., as plaintiffs andthe plaintiff (Caldwell) as defendant to determine who was the owner of theJaguar car.o The defendant was the owner of a Jaguar car. On January 12, 1960, hesold it for £975 to N. who took the car away leaving a deposit of £10 and acheque for £965.o The cheque was dishonoured when the defendant presented it at the bankat 10 a.m. on the following morning, January 13, and the defendant immediatelythereafter informed the police and the Automobile Association of the fraudulenttransaction. o Subsequently, N. purported to sell the car to a firm of dealers, M.Ltd., who it was agreed had notice of the defect in title. o M. Ltd. then purported to sell it to G. & C. Ltd., a finance house,for whom they were dealers, filling in a hire-purchase agreement form with thename of one K. as hirer. o Apart from looking in the register to ascertain if there had beenprevious hire-purchase transactions with this car, G. & C. Ltd. left allmatters regarding the title to the car and the suitability of the hirer to M.Ltd. o The car was subsequently sold by G. & C. Ltd. to a dealer who inturn sold it to the plaintiffs who bought in good faith and without notice ofany defect in title. o On the trial, in interpleader proceedings, of the issues whether thedefendant's conduct on January 13, 1960, amounted to rescission of the contractwith N., and whether any transaction between M. Ltd. and G. & C. Ltd. amountedto a sale in which G. & C. Ltd. bought in good faith and without notice ofany defect in title, Lord Denning M.R., sitting as an additional judge of theQueen's Bench Division, held § (1) that where a seller of goods had a right to avoid a contract for fraud,he sufficiently exercised his election if on discovering the fraud heimmediately took all possible steps to regain the goods even though he couldnot find the purchaser or communicate with him and that, therefore, thecontract of sale with N. was avoided by the defendant on January 13, theproperty in the car was revested in him and the purported sales to M. Ltd. andby M. Ltd. to G. & C. Ltd. were *526ineffective to pass the property. § (2) That alternatively M. Ltd. were the agents of G. & C. Ltd. toinvestigate the title to the car and that, therefore, M. Ltd.'s knowledge ofthe defect in title was fixed on G. & C. Ltd., who did not acquire a goodtitle to it.-
HELD On appeal:-o Held (1) that if a party to a contract by deliberately absconding put it outof the power of the other party to communicate his intention to rescind, thenhe could not insist on his right to be made aware of the election to determinethe contract and the innocent party must be allowed to exercise his right ofrescission otherwise than by communication or repossessing; that in suchcircumstances an innocent party might evince his intention to disaffirm thecontract by overt means falling short of communication or repossession; andthat, therefore, the defendant's actions were sufficient to avoid the contract(post, pp. 550-551, 555, 558-559).o (2) That there was insufficient evidence to establish a general or anyagency involving a duty on the dealers, M. Ltd., to make inquiries as to titleon behalf of G. & C. Ltd.; and that, therefore, the question whether or nottheir knowledge of the defect in title was fixed on G. & C. Ltd. did notarise (post, pp. 553, 556-557, 560).o Dicta of Lord Blackburn in Scarf v. Jardine(1882) 7 App.Cas. 345, 361,H.L., and of Lord Hatherley L.C. in Reese River Silver Mining Co. v.Smith(1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 64, 74, H.L. considered.o Decision of Lord Denning M.R., post, p. 530; [1963] 2 All E.R. 547affirmed in part.o Central question= whether D had validly rescinded the contract before the car had been acquiredby a bona fide purchaser for value without noticeo The court of appeal, indismissing an appeal by C from the first instance decision of Lord Denning MR(sitting unusually as an additional judge of the QBD) held that the contracthad been validly rescinded by the D informing the police and AA-
JUDGEMENTS
Sellers LJ§ This appeal raises a primary point in the law of contract. The question has arisen whether a contractwhich is voidable by one party can in any circumstances be terminated by thatparty without his rescission being communicated to the other party. LordDenning M.R. has held in the circumstances of this case that there can berescission without communication where the seller of a motor car, whoadmittedly had the right to rescind the contract of sale on the ground offraudulent misrepresentation, terminated the contract by an unequivocal act ofelection which demonstrated clearly that he had elected to rescind it and to beno longer bound by it. The general rule, no doubt, is that where a party isentitled to rescind a contract and wishes to do so the contract subsists untilthe opposing party is informed that the contract has been terminated. Thedifficulty of the seller in this case was that, when he learnt of the fraudand, therefore, ascertained his right to terminate the bargain, he could notwithout considerable delay find either the fraudulent buyer or the car whichhad been sold. Such circumstances would not appear to be so rare intransactions in motor cars (or horses in earlier days) that they would not, itmight be thought, have given rise to litigation and an authoritative decision,but it seems that over the years the point in issue has not been decided in anyreported cases in similar or comparable circumstances.§ …§ Where a contracting partycould be communicated with, and modern facilities make communicationpractically world-wide and almost immediate, it would be unlikely that a partycould be held to have disaffirmed a contract unless he went so far as tocommunicate his decision so to do. It would be whatthe other contracting party would normally require and unless communicationwere made the party's intention to rescind would not have been unequivocally orclearly demonstrated or made manifest. Butin circumstances such as the present case, the other contracting party, afraudulent rogue who would know that the vendor would want his car back as soonas he knew of the fraud, would not expect to be communicated with as a matterof right or requirement, and would deliberately, as here, do all he could toevade any such communication being made to him. In such exceptional contractualcircumstances, it does not seem to me appropriate to hold that a party soacting can claim any right to have a decision to rescind communicated to him beforethe contract is terminated. To hold that he could would involve that thedefrauding party, if skilful enough to keep out of the way, could deprive theother party to the contract of his right to rescind, a right to which he wasentitled and which *551 hewould wish to exercise, as the defrauding party would well know or at leastconfidently suspect. The position has to be viewed, as I see it, between thetwo contracting parties involved in the particular contract in question. That another innocent party or parties maysuffer does not in my view of the matter justify imposing on a defrauded selleran impossible task. He has to establish, clearly and unequivocally, that heterminates the contract and is no longer to be bound by it. If he cannotcommunicate his decision he may still satisfy a judge or jury that he had madea final and irrevocable decision and ended the contract.o Upjohn LJ§ If one party, byabsconding, deliberately puts it out of the power of the other to communicatehis intention to rescind which he knows the other will almost certainly want todo, I do not think he can any longer insist on his right to be made aware ofthe election to determine the contract. In thesecircumstances communication is a useless formality. I think that the law mustallow the innocent party to exercise his right of rescission otherwise than bycommunication or repossession. To hold otherwise would be to allow a fraudulentcontracting party by his very fraud to prevent the innocent party fromexercising his undoubted right. I would hold that in circumstances such asthese the innocent party may evince his intention to disaffirm the contract byovert means falling short of communication or repossession.§ We heard much interesting argument on the position where one party makesan innocent misrepresentation which entitles the other to elect to rescind andthen innocently so acts that the other cannot find him to communicate hiselection to him. I say nothing about that case and would leave it to be decidedif and when it arises. I am solely concerned with the fraudulent rogue whodeliberately makes it impossible for the other to communicate with him or toretake the property.o
Davies LJ§ On the facts of this case Norris must be taken to have known that thedefendant might, on ascertaining the fraud, wish to rescind the contract.Norris disappeared; and so did the car. The defendant could, therefore, neithercommunicate with Norris nor retake the car. It must, therefore, I think, betaken to be implied in the transaction between Norris and the defendant that inthe event of the defendant's wishing to rescind he should be entitled to do soby the best other means possible. Lex non *559cogit ad impossibilia. It is true that it was conceivably possible that thedefendant might decide not to rescind but to sue on the cheque instead; but itis most doubtful whether on the facts of this case such a possibility couldhave occurred to Norris as a real one. The fact that Norris knew that he was arogue and that, therefore, the defendant was likely to be after himdistinguishes this case from that of an innocent misrepresentor. It would notoccur to the latter that the other party to the contract would have any rightor desire to rescind, so that there would be no such implication as that whichI have suggested arose in the present case.§ It was argued that the defendant's action in going to the police and theAutomobile Association was not an unequivocal act, since it was open to him tohave changed his mind on the next day if, to use Mr. Caplan's phrase, Norrishad suddenly on a football pool and so have become a worthwhile defendant to anaction on the cheque. That again, in my opinion, is an unrealistic view of thefacts. The defendant was, as I think, declaring to the world: "I have beenswindled and I want my car back." He was declaring his intention asclearly as if he had seen the car in the street and seized it.-
COMMENTS Caselays down that while communication to the other contracting party that one isrescinding the contract is normally required, an overt act showing that one isrescinding the contract is sufficient where communication is not possible, atleast where the other contracting party is a fraudstero Might be argued that as both C and Dwere innocent the loss should’ve stayed where it fell so that Caldwell shouldnot have got his car back- but on this argument one would never be able torescind as against a bonafide purchaser for value without notice even by priorcommunication to the misrepresentoro Implicit in this decision thatrescission is a self-help remedy which is available without coming to court
Again sorry for the formatting.
If this floats your boat, good on you! enjoy law!
Another note on why i find law dull- most subjects have reading lists comprising of novels, textbooks, diagrams, videos etc etc. Interesting sources.
Law is CASES, STATUTES and ARTICLES. Textbooks occasionally. There is very little variety.
Enjoy xoxoxox
My notes for one weeks topic are often up to 80 size 10 typed pages. and this is for ONE of TWO topics that we study each week!
Also, this is from a very un-conscientious student. I drink several times per week, row most days and do a load of other stuff.
Anyway, here is ONE case!!
* Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525-
Court of Appeal (QBD): Sellers, Upjohn andDavies L.JJ. Lord Denning M.R.(sitting as an Additional Judge of the Queen'sBench Division)-
SUMMARY
Car fraudsters case, held that while communication to the othercontracting party that one is rescinding the contract is normally required, anovert act showing that one is rescinding the contract is sufficient wherecommunication is not possible, at least where the other contracting party is afraudster- FACTS
In the original action of Caldwell v. Motobella Co. Ltd. 1 the plaintiff obtained judgment by default,Paull J. ordering the return of a Jaguar car to the plaintiff or £975, itsvalue, with costs. After the Sheriff of of Hampshire had seized the carpursuant to a writ of delivery in June, 1962, an interpleader summons was heardbefore Master Harwood on July 26, 1962, and an issue was ordered to be triedbetween the claimants, Car & Universal Finance Co. Ltd., as plaintiffs andthe plaintiff (Caldwell) as defendant to determine who was the owner of theJaguar car.o The defendant was the owner of a Jaguar car. On January 12, 1960, hesold it for £975 to N. who took the car away leaving a deposit of £10 and acheque for £965.o The cheque was dishonoured when the defendant presented it at the bankat 10 a.m. on the following morning, January 13, and the defendant immediatelythereafter informed the police and the Automobile Association of the fraudulenttransaction. o Subsequently, N. purported to sell the car to a firm of dealers, M.Ltd., who it was agreed had notice of the defect in title. o M. Ltd. then purported to sell it to G. & C. Ltd., a finance house,for whom they were dealers, filling in a hire-purchase agreement form with thename of one K. as hirer. o Apart from looking in the register to ascertain if there had beenprevious hire-purchase transactions with this car, G. & C. Ltd. left allmatters regarding the title to the car and the suitability of the hirer to M.Ltd. o The car was subsequently sold by G. & C. Ltd. to a dealer who inturn sold it to the plaintiffs who bought in good faith and without notice ofany defect in title. o On the trial, in interpleader proceedings, of the issues whether thedefendant's conduct on January 13, 1960, amounted to rescission of the contractwith N., and whether any transaction between M. Ltd. and G. & C. Ltd. amountedto a sale in which G. & C. Ltd. bought in good faith and without notice ofany defect in title, Lord Denning M.R., sitting as an additional judge of theQueen's Bench Division, held § (1) that where a seller of goods had a right to avoid a contract for fraud,he sufficiently exercised his election if on discovering the fraud heimmediately took all possible steps to regain the goods even though he couldnot find the purchaser or communicate with him and that, therefore, thecontract of sale with N. was avoided by the defendant on January 13, theproperty in the car was revested in him and the purported sales to M. Ltd. andby M. Ltd. to G. & C. Ltd. were *526ineffective to pass the property. § (2) That alternatively M. Ltd. were the agents of G. & C. Ltd. toinvestigate the title to the car and that, therefore, M. Ltd.'s knowledge ofthe defect in title was fixed on G. & C. Ltd., who did not acquire a goodtitle to it.- HELD
On appeal:-o Held (1) that if a party to a contract by deliberately absconding put it outof the power of the other party to communicate his intention to rescind, thenhe could not insist on his right to be made aware of the election to determinethe contract and the innocent party must be allowed to exercise his right ofrescission otherwise than by communication or repossessing; that in suchcircumstances an innocent party might evince his intention to disaffirm thecontract by overt means falling short of communication or repossession; andthat, therefore, the defendant's actions were sufficient to avoid the contract(post, pp. 550-551, 555, 558-559).o (2) That there was insufficient evidence to establish a general or anyagency involving a duty on the dealers, M. Ltd., to make inquiries as to titleon behalf of G. & C. Ltd.; and that, therefore, the question whether or nottheir knowledge of the defect in title was fixed on G. & C. Ltd. did notarise (post, pp. 553, 556-557, 560).o Dicta of Lord Blackburn in Scarf v. Jardine(1882) 7 App.Cas. 345, 361,H.L., and of Lord Hatherley L.C. in Reese River Silver Mining Co. v.Smith(1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 64, 74, H.L. considered.o Decision of Lord Denning M.R., post, p. 530; [1963] 2 All E.R. 547affirmed in part.o Central question= whether D had validly rescinded the contract before the car had been acquiredby a bona fide purchaser for value without noticeo The court of appeal, indismissing an appeal by C from the first instance decision of Lord Denning MR(sitting unusually as an additional judge of the QBD) held that the contracthad been validly rescinded by the D informing the police and AA- JUDGEMENTS
Sellers LJ§ This appeal raises a primary point in the law of contract. The question has arisen whether a contractwhich is voidable by one party can in any circumstances be terminated by thatparty without his rescission being communicated to the other party. LordDenning M.R. has held in the circumstances of this case that there can berescission without communication where the seller of a motor car, whoadmittedly had the right to rescind the contract of sale on the ground offraudulent misrepresentation, terminated the contract by an unequivocal act ofelection which demonstrated clearly that he had elected to rescind it and to beno longer bound by it. The general rule, no doubt, is that where a party isentitled to rescind a contract and wishes to do so the contract subsists untilthe opposing party is informed that the contract has been terminated. Thedifficulty of the seller in this case was that, when he learnt of the fraudand, therefore, ascertained his right to terminate the bargain, he could notwithout considerable delay find either the fraudulent buyer or the car whichhad been sold. Such circumstances would not appear to be so rare intransactions in motor cars (or horses in earlier days) that they would not, itmight be thought, have given rise to litigation and an authoritative decision,but it seems that over the years the point in issue has not been decided in anyreported cases in similar or comparable circumstances.§ …§ Where a contracting partycould be communicated with, and modern facilities make communicationpractically world-wide and almost immediate, it would be unlikely that a partycould be held to have disaffirmed a contract unless he went so far as tocommunicate his decision so to do. It would be whatthe other contracting party would normally require and unless communicationwere made the party's intention to rescind would not have been unequivocally orclearly demonstrated or made manifest. Butin circumstances such as the present case, the other contracting party, afraudulent rogue who would know that the vendor would want his car back as soonas he knew of the fraud, would not expect to be communicated with as a matterof right or requirement, and would deliberately, as here, do all he could toevade any such communication being made to him. In such exceptional contractualcircumstances, it does not seem to me appropriate to hold that a party soacting can claim any right to have a decision to rescind communicated to him beforethe contract is terminated. To hold that he could would involve that thedefrauding party, if skilful enough to keep out of the way, could deprive theother party to the contract of his right to rescind, a right to which he wasentitled and which *551 hewould wish to exercise, as the defrauding party would well know or at leastconfidently suspect. The position has to be viewed, as I see it, between thetwo contracting parties involved in the particular contract in question. That another innocent party or parties maysuffer does not in my view of the matter justify imposing on a defrauded selleran impossible task. He has to establish, clearly and unequivocally, that heterminates the contract and is no longer to be bound by it. If he cannotcommunicate his decision he may still satisfy a judge or jury that he had madea final and irrevocable decision and ended the contract.o Upjohn LJ§ If one party, byabsconding, deliberately puts it out of the power of the other to communicatehis intention to rescind which he knows the other will almost certainly want todo, I do not think he can any longer insist on his right to be made aware ofthe election to determine the contract. In thesecircumstances communication is a useless formality. I think that the law mustallow the innocent party to exercise his right of rescission otherwise than bycommunication or repossession. To hold otherwise would be to allow a fraudulentcontracting party by his very fraud to prevent the innocent party fromexercising his undoubted right. I would hold that in circumstances such asthese the innocent party may evince his intention to disaffirm the contract byovert means falling short of communication or repossession.§ We heard much interesting argument on the position where one party makesan innocent misrepresentation which entitles the other to elect to rescind andthen innocently so acts that the other cannot find him to communicate hiselection to him. I say nothing about that case and would leave it to be decidedif and when it arises. I am solely concerned with the fraudulent rogue whodeliberately makes it impossible for the other to communicate with him or toretake the property.o
Davies LJ§ On the facts of this case Norris must be taken to have known that thedefendant might, on ascertaining the fraud, wish to rescind the contract.Norris disappeared; and so did the car. The defendant could, therefore, neithercommunicate with Norris nor retake the car. It must, therefore, I think, betaken to be implied in the transaction between Norris and the defendant that inthe event of the defendant's wishing to rescind he should be entitled to do soby the best other means possible. Lex non *559cogit ad impossibilia. It is true that it was conceivably possible that thedefendant might decide not to rescind but to sue on the cheque instead; but itis most doubtful whether on the facts of this case such a possibility couldhave occurred to Norris as a real one. The fact that Norris knew that he was arogue and that, therefore, the defendant was likely to be after himdistinguishes this case from that of an innocent misrepresentor. It would notoccur to the latter that the other party to the contract would have any rightor desire to rescind, so that there would be no such implication as that whichI have suggested arose in the present case.§ It was argued that the defendant's action in going to the police and theAutomobile Association was not an unequivocal act, since it was open to him tohave changed his mind on the next day if, to use Mr. Caplan's phrase, Norrishad suddenly on a football pool and so have become a worthwhile defendant to anaction on the cheque. That again, in my opinion, is an unrealistic view of thefacts. The defendant was, as I think, declaring to the world: "I have beenswindled and I want my car back." He was declaring his intention asclearly as if he had seen the car in the street and seized it.-
COMMENTS
Caselays down that while communication to the other contracting party that one isrescinding the contract is normally required, an overt act showing that one isrescinding the contract is sufficient where communication is not possible, atleast where the other contracting party is a fraudstero Might be argued that as both C and Dwere innocent the loss should’ve stayed where it fell so that Caldwell shouldnot have got his car back- but on this argument one would never be able torescind as against a bonafide purchaser for value without notice even by priorcommunication to the misrepresentoro Implicit in this decision thatrescission is a self-help remedy which is available without coming to courtAgain sorry for the formatting.
If this floats your boat, good on you! enjoy law!
Another note on why i find law dull- most subjects have reading lists comprising of novels, textbooks, diagrams, videos etc etc. Interesting sources.
Law is CASES, STATUTES and ARTICLES. Textbooks occasionally. There is very little variety.
Enjoy xoxoxox
(edited 7 years ago)
I've just finished an access (to law) diploma, and i'll be starting an llb in October. so, I haven't experienced it yet, but, I imagine i'll also find the material and amount of reading boring and pointless to wade through.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by M518
I've just finished an access (to law) diploma, and i'll be starting an llb in October. so, I haven't experienced it yet, but, I imagine i'll also find the material and amount of reading boring and pointless to wade through.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
Good luck getting a TC with an access course lol
Original post by M518
I've just finished an access (to law) diploma, and i'll be starting an llb in October. so, I haven't experienced it yet, but, I imagine i'll also find the material and amount of reading boring and pointless to wade through.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
speaking generally, the way your mind is attuned must affect suitability to study law. I would imagine technical, deductive thinkers, like maths-inclined people, would do well. as for me, I prefer broad generalities, and abstract thinking. details I mostly think are pointless, and in any case boring.
but i'm studying law because I am an idealist, and I have an idealistic end for which being a lawyer is the means. so for me, that has been, so far, and hopefully will remain, enough motivation to do the work, and do it well enough to get good grades. on the same token, why did you choose to study law?
as for other subjects being more interesting, and the gdl being a better option, I imagine that's true for most people. there are a few subjects I am interested in, but I would despise studying them academically. philosophy rendered academic sucks all the magic out. I had a look at past Oxbridge exam papers, and, jesus Christ, I will say no more. which leads into my conclusion, that i am not intrinsically interested in studying anything at university, least of all law, given that 1 - I prefer to think with no artificial boundaries or constraints, as are imposed by academia, and only about things which are innately worthwhile (to me), and 2 - law is not something I am naturally suited to, being the 'opposite' kind of thinker. but, I have a reason to do it, so whilst I agree with everything you say about how boring law is, and anticipate i'll find it to be the same, it's also my only option, if I am to qualify, which is to say I can only tolerate study rendered through academia because of my end goal, and law is the first step towards it.
Fair enough! it seems that you have thought this through!
Just to clarify, my posts weren't aimed at criticising those who choose to study law; i did! Well don't for completing the access to Law diploma! Even in the position that you are in however, having committed some time to getting into a position where you can apply, I would strongly urge that you try to spend a week in the life of a law student. It is truly impossible to know what to expect, but doing this might get you somewhat closer.
Re law being suitable to a mathematical mind- this is often quoted but is in fact rather untrue. Much of law is nebulous and vague. I have a more mathematical mind and detest that there is never an answer or somewhere to find it. More like a hundred sources which require you to wade through old english and technical language to find what may or may not be the thing you're looking for!
A note on your idealism- great! Love it! I'm one too (as much as it might seem the opposite by my thread)! Just be warned that academic law study is well known for sucking the life out of people aha! Please, i urge you to be realistic and commits a week or a few weeks to pretending that you're a law student. If you enjoy it, go for it and you'll probably find it a very stimulating and exciting course!
I have been considering studying law for a while, I know many think it's dry and boring but I have always found the social sciences interesting. It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such. It does seem like a high work load but would you say you regret studying law or do you think it will be worth it? I hear so many scare stories about studying law, my mum knows someone who studied it and is a solicitor now and it's just so boring apparently. But I would like to go into criminal law so all these stories, they put me off a bit. 
It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such. It does seem like a high work load but would you say you regret studying law or do you think it will be worth it? I hear so many scare stories about studying law, my mum knows someone who studied it and is a solicitor now and it's just so boring apparently. But I would like to go into criminal law so all these stories, they put me off a bit. Original post by Shadow Hunters
I have been considering studying law for a while, I know many think it's dry and boring but I have always found the social sciences interesting. It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such. It does seem like a high work load but would you say you regret studying law or do you think it will be worth it? I hear so many scare stories about studying law, my mum knows someone who studied it and is a solicitor now and it's just so boring apparently. But I would like to go into criminal law so all these stories, they put me off a bit.
It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such. It does seem like a high work load but would you say you regret studying law or do you think it will be worth it? I hear so many scare stories about studying law, my mum knows someone who studied it and is a solicitor now and it's just so boring apparently. But I would like to go into criminal law so all these stories, they put me off a bit. You are in a very similar position to the one i was in.
Please follow my advice and try a week in the life of a law student- i am happy to facilitate this as much as i can.
You say "It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such"
1. yes this might on first instance be interesting, and it is interesting to debate casually for an hour or so. But try wading through centuries of legislation and case law to find out why sentences are as they are and who made what decision in what circumstance etc etc etc
2. an undergrad law degree barely looks at sentencing. this is practical law which you will study if you do the LPC/ BPTC
Criminal law is of course the most interesting (see my posts above). Again a few notes on this
1. it is one module of 12 (or round about this number)
2. You will also have to study contract, land, tort, EU, constant, trusts, equity etc etc etc
3. A lot of criminal law is not interesting in the slightest
4. Most law students come into the degree with an interest in criminal law. This is quickly killed off after perhaps one week when you find out that
a) everyone else was as idealistic as yourself
b) the criminal bar is incredibly competitive- majority of all barristers are from Oxbridge, criminal bar is almost inpenetratable
c) there is no funding for criminal barristers. Legal aid barely exists any more. Criminal law is now a sector in which it is impossible to make a living. There is no future whatsoever in the criminal bar. This is a fact- not an opinion.
Please be realistic. I'm not trying to scare you/ be pessimistc/ put you off. I am speaking from experience and knowledge! Please please listen, there are way too many law grads for the training contracts/ pupillage's. WAY too many.
And the degree is just so different to any other degree.
Do your research- apart from anything you need to be a damn good researcher to do law!
Original post by anonymousanna
You are in a very similar position to the one i was in.
Please follow my advice and try a week in the life of a law student- i am happy to facilitate this as much as i can.
You say "It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such"
1. yes this might on first instance be interesting, and it is interesting to debate casually for an hour or so. But try wading through centuries of legislation and case law to find out why sentences are as they are and who made what decision in what circumstance etc etc etc
2. an undergrad law degree barely looks at sentencing. this is practical law which you will study if you do the LPC/ BPTC
Criminal law is of course the most interesting (see my posts above). Again a few notes on this
1. it is one module of 12 (or round about this number)
2. You will also have to study contract, land, tort, EU, constant, trusts, equity etc etc etc
3. A lot of criminal law is not interesting in the slightest
4. Most law students come into the degree with an interest in criminal law. This is quickly killed off after perhaps one week when you find out that
a) everyone else was as idealistic as yourself
b) the criminal bar is incredibly competitive- majority of all barristers are from Oxbridge, criminal bar is almost inpenetratable
c) there is no funding for criminal barristers. Legal aid barely exists any more. Criminal law is now a sector in which it is impossible to make a living. There is no future whatsoever in the criminal bar. This is a fact- not an opinion.
Please be realistic. I'm not trying to scare you/ be pessimistc/ put you off. I am speaking from experience and knowledge! Please please listen, there are way too many law grads for the training contracts/ pupillage's. WAY too many.
And the degree is just so different to any other degree.
Do your research- apart from anything you need to be a damn good researcher to do law!
Please follow my advice and try a week in the life of a law student- i am happy to facilitate this as much as i can.
You say "It's interesting how depending on certain circumstances a person gets a lower or higher sentence and such"
1. yes this might on first instance be interesting, and it is interesting to debate casually for an hour or so. But try wading through centuries of legislation and case law to find out why sentences are as they are and who made what decision in what circumstance etc etc etc
2. an undergrad law degree barely looks at sentencing. this is practical law which you will study if you do the LPC/ BPTC
Criminal law is of course the most interesting (see my posts above). Again a few notes on this
1. it is one module of 12 (or round about this number)
2. You will also have to study contract, land, tort, EU, constant, trusts, equity etc etc etc
3. A lot of criminal law is not interesting in the slightest
4. Most law students come into the degree with an interest in criminal law. This is quickly killed off after perhaps one week when you find out that
a) everyone else was as idealistic as yourself
b) the criminal bar is incredibly competitive- majority of all barristers are from Oxbridge, criminal bar is almost inpenetratable
c) there is no funding for criminal barristers. Legal aid barely exists any more. Criminal law is now a sector in which it is impossible to make a living. There is no future whatsoever in the criminal bar. This is a fact- not an opinion.
Please be realistic. I'm not trying to scare you/ be pessimistc/ put you off. I am speaking from experience and knowledge! Please please listen, there are way too many law grads for the training contracts/ pupillage's. WAY too many.
And the degree is just so different to any other degree.
Do your research- apart from anything you need to be a damn good researcher to do law!
Thanks for the reply! Hm yeah, I am sure I read something about it being ignorant to believe you can change the world and do good things in law, it's all money or something.
I am aware that there are a lot of people who graduate from law, so not very many jobs in the profession however I am not sure if I want to actually become a lawyer, I thought having a knowledge of law would help for getting into politics, I'd really like to be a political adviser or journalist, I thought of studying law as a combined course with politics. 
And aha I have done research but there isn't a whole lot I can learn from what I've read in the guardian newspaper or the daily mail about what it's really like. I may do research into other parts of the courses like property law or something to see if I would be interested in it. I appreciate it!Bear in mind that the OP's experience is not by any means universal. There are many students (including me) that greatly enjoy studying Law. [Just in case you thought it was all doom and gloom].
Original post by Hi1997
Good luck getting a TC with an access course lol
What do you know about TC recruiting? I take it not very much
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- xx
- LSE Graduate prospects
- Universities for Law 2024
- Lancaster Law or York uni for politics???
- Do I choose UCL or LSE ? For Politics and Philosophy
- CITY, UoL, or SOAS?
- where to apply for law?
- Nottingham law prestige?
- Kent or Aberdeen?
- Advice for first year students - University of Kent
- What’s better for Law, University of Exeter or Queen’s University Belfast?
- Law LLB
- can i have a good career with out going to a russel group
- International students preparing for SQE! Visa issues?
- Which uni is best for law in Uk?
- Roehampton or Oxford brookes for law
- reading, aston or kent for law
- Opinions on Newcastle University for LLB
- Edinburgh university law
- Law in Cardiff University
