Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Aqa law unit 2 *offical thread* Watch

  • View Poll Results: What grade do you think you got on the law unit 2 exam?
    A
    15
    35.71%
    B
    14
    33.33%
    C
    5
    11.90%
    D
    4
    9.52%
    E
    2
    4.76%
    U
    2
    4.76%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    or a list of the questions
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwerty505)
    Yeah because they aren't expecting detail in an application question about the cases as much as if it was a definition question.

    Do you think messing up the duty of care question will affect my grade much? Considering I seem to have done the rest right and Section A went well?
    Nah I retook this exam and last year I answered the tort section and 3 questions from the criminal section and still got a C 🙄 Managed to answer them all this year though haha
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danielsmith99)
    has anyone got un an official mark scheme
    I'll make an unofficial mark scheme it will be up around 4pm today gonna get others to check it first to make sure it's all correct etc...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I'll make an unofficial mark scheme it will be up around 4pm today gonna get others to check it first to make sure it's all correct etc...

    ok thanks could you a put a list of the questions up/ a link please
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danielsmith99)
    ok thanks could you a put a list of the questions up/ a link please
    Yeah will do..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    Whoever did contract law, for the question regarding whether there was a contract between Fay and Gareth and Fay and Harry what did everybody say? I said there was a contract with Gareth but not Harry because of a lapse of time due to the fact that she tried to accept 2 months later and I justified it as not reasonable time for the offer to still be valid.. However thinking it's wrong now because it asked what breaches they both would be held for so there must be a contract? and speaking to others, they did say that it was still acceptance. Just wondered what others put?
    I said there was a lapse of time and used Ramsgate Hotel as a case to reference this. The question actually said 'If there is a breach' so it didn't actually say that it was a breach for both. Speaking to others for me they also put lapse of time. To be honest the mark scheme usually factors in both sides being right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The exam baffled me so much!
    For the criminal section question about s20, was I right in putting the actus reus, men's rea, saying that Binh was reckless and then saying that the medical treatment would not break the chain of causation as it was not palpably wrong? My friend said the question was just about causation (but for, de minimis, thin skull) and it freaked me out! Especially as it's a 10 mark question! I'm worried I'm going to lose out on all those marks!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r*c*e*g*e*g)
    The exam baffled me so much!
    For the criminal section question about s20, was I right in putting the actus reus, men's rea, saying that Binh was reckless and then saying that the medical treatment would not break the chain of causation as it was not palpably wrong? My friend said the question was just about causation (but for, de minimis, thin skull) and it freaked me out! Especially as it's a 10 mark question! I'm worried I'm going to lose out on all those marks!
    No it was S.20, not causation, although I think you did have to mention it. You can still get 7/10 marks though/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by georgia_moon)
    I said there was a lapse of time and used Ramsgate Hotel as a case to reference this. The question actually said 'If there is a breach' so it didn't actually say that it was a breach for both. Speaking to others for me they also put lapse of time. To be honest the mark scheme usually factors in both sides being right.
    Ah good good, hadn't found anybody else that had! Yeah that is true, did you put anticipatory breach anyway? For Harry
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Posting the unofficial criminal mark scheme soon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm confused. I've been told that if the intervening act which here was medical negligence, breaks the chain of causation which I said it did in reference to the doctor having the substantial cause of the brain damage, then you stop at that because the offence of brain damage is not with them and so I did not get on to the men's rea? Did anybody else do this or did everybody do the men's rea regardless, just seems pointless
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    This is the UNOFFICIAL mark scheme for AQA law unit 2 (Criminal section) - 2016. If there are any errors please inform me! I have tried to put this together to the best of my ability, it took a lot of time and trolling through past papers and mark schemes so rep would be appreciated.


    Thanks,
    NHM

    Tort up next.
    PRSOM - looks good, I think I got most of that in my answers luckily.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    I'm confused. I've been told that if the intervening act which here was medical negligence, breaks the chain of causation which I said it did in reference to the doctor having the substantial cause of the brain damage, then you stop at that because the offence of brain damage is not with them and so I did not get on to the men's rea? Did anybody else do this or did everybody do the men's rea regardless, just seems pointless
    I said that he was reckless as to pushing Aki, as he pushed him 'roughly' therefore was reckless as to causing some harm. I then commented on the causation issue, saying that if the medical treatment had been 'palpably wrong' then it would break the chain, as in Jordan. I then also commented that medical intervention rarely breaks the chain, such as in Malcharek.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    I'm confused. I've been told that if the intervening act which here was medical negligence, breaks the chain of causation which I said it did in reference to the doctor having the substantial cause of the brain damage, then you stop at that because the offence of brain damage is not with them and so I did not get on to the men's rea? Did anybody else do this or did everybody do the men's rea regardless, just seems pointless

    It would not break the chain. (Smith)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    It would not break the chain. (Smith)
    Why wouldn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    Why wouldn't it?

    Well if you look up the case of smith.. The act of Binh pushing Aki overwhelmed the act of the doctors telling him to come back soon if it wasn't any better... Plus medical negligence rarely brakes the chain...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    This is the UNOFFICIAL mark scheme for AQA law unit 2 (Criminal section) - 2016. If there are any errors please inform me! I have tried to put this together to the best of my ability, it took a lot of time and trolling through past papers and mark schemes so rep would be appreciated.


    Thanks,
    NHM

    Tort up next.
    Thank you!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Well if you look up the case of smith.. The act of Binh pushing Aki overwhelmed the act of the doctors telling him to come back soon if it wasn't any better... Plus medical negligence rarely brakes the chain...
    Oh great 🙂🙃 do you think I would get any marks for it, as I did the actus reus all the way through fine still? Thanks for the help aha
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    Oh great 🙂🙃 do you think I would get any marks for it, as I did the actus reus all the way through fine still? Thanks for the help aha
    Yeah, should do hopefully.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone remember what question 9 of the tort section was?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.