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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    AQA LAW UNIT 2 2016 UNOFFICIAL MARK SCHEME - PART OF TORT 1. Explainwhat is meant by breach of duty and briefly explain one of the risk factors. (8Marks)(A) Outline with cases and/or examples of the meaning of thereasonable man objective test –explained through a case such as Blyth vBirmingham Waterworks specialcharacteristics of the defendant professionals– explained through a case such as Bolamv Friern Barnet HMC learners –explained through a case such as Nettleshipv Weston • children – explained through a case such as Mullins v Richards. (B) Brief explanation with cases of the meaning of any onerisk factor and the effect that has on the standard of care, for example: specialcharacteristics of the claimant – if known to the defendant to be morevulnerable, then higher standard expected – explained through a case such as Paris v Stepney BC / the size of therisk – the reasonable man does not take care against minute risks, but doesagainst big risks – explained through a case such as Bolton v Stone / practical precautions – taking reasonable but notexcessive precautions – explained through a case such as Latimer v AEC /the benefits of taking the risk – emergencies andpublic utility – explained through a case such as Watt v Herts CC.MAX 5 IF NO RISKFACTOR.2. Explainwhat is meant by remoteness in damage (8marks)Explanation of remoteness of damage; this should includeforeseeability, the Wagon Mound test. Type of damage as in Hughes v LordAdvocate – does not matter about the precise order of events as long as thedamage was foreseeable/Thin Skull rule as in Smith v Leech Brain.Here's what you should have included for question 7 and 8 of the TORT section. I can do questions 9-12 due to not being aware of the full question!! HOPE THIS HELPS :-)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charlotte_6898)
    Ah good good, hadn't found anybody else that had! Yeah that is true, did you put anticipatory breach anyway? For Harry
    no i just said there was Actual breach for Gareth, and then said there was no breach for Harry. I felt like two lots of breach to talk about after defining both before, was loads for 8 marks.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    what was needed in question 12 i.e burden and standard of proof and res ipsa?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Can anyone remember what question 9 of the tort section was?
    The questions were posted earlier in this thread:Tort -7) breach and one risk factor (8 marks) 8) remoteness in damage (8 marks) - this was a generous question 9) damage and remoteness in negligence ( 8 marks + 2 A03) 10) duty of care ( 8 marks) 11) procedure to negligence claims (5 marks) 12) burden and standard of proof + res ispa loquitor (8 marks)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilythorb)
    The questions were posted earlier in this thread:Tort -7) breach and one risk factor (8 marks) 8) remoteness in damage (8 marks) - this was a generous question 9) damage and remoteness in negligence ( 8 marks + 2 A03) 10) duty of care ( 8 marks) 11) procedure to negligence claims (5 marks) 12) burden and standard of proof + res ispa loquitor (8 marks)
    Thanks Emily! I feel stupid now seen as it was me that posted them! - have you seen my unofficial mark scheme for criminal law? :-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asimplestudent)
    what was needed in question 12 i.e burden and standard of proof and res ipsa?
    You need to say what res ipsa Loquitur is and say that it is used when the negligence is obvious but the defendant doesn't know how. Then you had to say what the three rules were for it to apply and if it does then if shifts the burden if proof from the claimant the defendant and he must prove he was not negligent.

    Then explain what the standard of proof is and where it lies (i didn't include it because i don't know what it is)

    Then you had to apply to the scenario to the 3 rules and in this case it obviously did apply. Therefore chris will have to prove he took all practical precautions to not be liable in negligence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    You need to say what res ipsa Loquitur is and say that it is used when the negligence is obvious but the defendant doesn't know how. Then you had to say what the three rules were for it to apply and if it does then if shifts the burden if proof from the claimant the defendant and he must prove he was not negligent.

    Then explain what the standard of proof is and where it lies (i didn't include it because i don't know what it is)

    Then you had to apply to the scenario to the 3 rules and in this case it obviously did apply. Therefore chris will have to prove he took all practical precautions to not be liable in negligence.
    Standard of proof- balance of probability
    Burden of proof- on C that must prove D has been negligent.

    Res ispa loquitor I concluded that there may have been multiple explainations for Dans illness so he couldn't use it...
    I only really bothered applying the last factor... (only explaination of Cs injury/ damage) :-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Standard of proof- balance of probability
    Burden of proof- on C that must prove D has been negligent.

    Res ispa loquitor I concluded that there may have been multiple explainations for Dans illness so he couldn't use it...
    I only really bothered applying the last factor :-)
    I suppose you could argue it either way.

    I put dan being ill was wholly under control of chris
    I put that it wouldn't of happened unless chris served dan contaminated food
    There is no other explanation for him becoming ill quite soon after.

    Therefore it applies. But it depends how to interpreted the extract.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    I suppose you could argue it either way.

    I put dan being ill was wholly under control of chris
    I put that it wouldn't of happened unless chris served dan contaminated food
    There is no other explanation for him becoming ill quite soon after.

    Therefore it applies. But it depends how to interpreted the extract.
    I guess so yeah :-) I only put it didn't apply on the fact that he could have become ill for many reasons... It may have just been a sudden illness that he got etc. But yeah guess you could argue both ways :-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I guess so yeah :-) I only put it didn't apply on the fact that he could have become ill for many reasons... It may have just been a sudden illness that he got etc. But yeah guess you could argue both ways :-)
    We both came to a reasoned conclusion. A lot of the times in law it doesn't matter, as long as you justify yourself and apply.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bruce267099)
    We both came to a reasoned conclusion. A lot of the times in law it doesn't matter, as long as you justify yourself and apply.
    Yeah exactly I'm on my A2 year I retook this exam- the teacher always said to me it doesn't matter about the conclusion
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Yeah exactly I'm on my A2 year I retook this exam- the teacher always said to me it doesn't matter about the conclusion
    I think I'm doing the same, but I'll be better next year i'll go from my B to my A
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Thanks Emily! I feel stupid now seen as it was me that posted them! - have you seen my unofficial mark scheme for criminal law? :-)
    Yes I did! Will you be making one for section B tort of negligence ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilythorb)
    Yes I did! Will you be making one for section B tort of negligence ?
    Yeah Monday. Once I have access to the scenario so I can correctly apply it and I'll post it once I've had it checked by my tutor :-) what did you think of the criminal law one was it ok?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Yeah Monday. Once I have access to the scenario so I can correctly apply it and I'll post it once I've had it checked by my tutor :-) what did you think of the criminal law one was it ok?
    Yeah I did however I didn't think you could apply causation with s.20? I've never seen it in the textbook so that really confused me but everything else was spot on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilythorb)
    Yeah I did however I didn't think you could apply causation with s.20? I've never seen it in the textbook so that really confused me but everything else was spot on
    I personally didn't talk about causation :-) but I think you were meant to say that there is an intervening act (act of third party Smith) but it wouldn't break the chain as Binhs pushing Aki overwhelmed the doctors act of him telling him to come back in a few days if it wasn't any better... But I should imagine looking at previous mark schemes this will only lose you a few marks so you'd still potentially be able to get 7/10 marks for just talking about s.20 GBH(AR and MR) supported by cases :-) and application
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    I personally didn't talk about causation :-) but I think you were meant to say that there is an intervening act (act of third party Smith) but it wouldn't break the chain as Binhs pushing Aki overwhelmed the doctors act of him telling him to come back in a few days if it wasn't any better... But I should imagine looking at previous mark schemes this will only lose you a few marks so you'd still potentially be able to get 7/10 marks for just talking about s.20 GBH(AR and MR) supported by cases :-) and application
    No I didn't either since I've never seen a mark scheme in the past wanting you to include causation into a s20 question :/ but who knows eh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilythorb)
    No I didn't either since I've never seen a mark scheme in the past wanting you to include causation into a s20 question :/ but who knows eh
    Same here... I don't know if it was meant to be included... Just going with the consensus!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM)
    Same here... I don't know if it was meant to be included... Just going with the consensus!
    Yeah I agree because the question only asked how he could be charged with s.20
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilythorb)
    Yeah I agree because the question only asked how he could be charged with s.20
    Yeah exactly we will just have to wait and see!
 
 
 
  • 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.