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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNovellist)
    They'd better not :eek:
    im actually hoping to get an A in law..i was really bad at the start of year 10, i used to get 11/90 and towards the end of the year i was getting 75 and 80/90..hopefully i did better in unit 1 so it'll boost my grade
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNovellist)
    I think they were trying to catch us out with the 11-year-old child and 19-year-old adult thing. It didn't work tho ;D And yeah, the stem material is so flippin' annoying! We're trying to show what we know and they just copy the textbook down for us? I'd much prefer to have no stem and have the grade boundaries lowered a tiny bit!
    Yeah, I think the clue was that they bolded the "both" in asking about the claims, I went with the 19 year olds claim would probably fail as there were warning signs put up, covering the OLA 1984, but a the 5 year olds claim could be successful; as he could not be expected to read the sign and the area was left in a dangerous state, contrary to the same act.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _mk)
    im actually hoping to get an A in law..i was really bad at the start of year 10, i used to get 11/90 and towards the end of the year i was getting 75 and 80/90..hopefully i did better in unit 1 so it'll boost my grade
    Started in year 11. Me too - unit 1 around 82/3, unit 2 68-ish.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Typhoon99)
    Yeah, I think the clue was that they bolded the "both" in asking about the claims, I went with the 19 year olds claim would probably fail as there were warning signs put up, covering the OLA 1984, but a the 5 year olds claim could be successful; as he could not be expected to read the sign and the area was left in a dangerous state, contrary to the same act.
    Yeah, so did I. There is evidently a higher duty owed to children than to adults per the 1984 OLA. Occupiers are thus expected to take greater care, children can be allured per Cook v Midland and can gain prescriptive rights. The adult he was with could be argued to be incompetent as he did not have the discernment to not take a child onto the property contrary to Phipps.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNovellist)
    Yeah, so did I. There is evidently a higher duty owed to children than to adults per the 1984 OLA. Occupiers are thus expected to take greater care, children can be allured per Cook v Midland and can gain prescriptive rights. The adult he was with could be argued to be incompetent as he did not have the discernment to not take a child onto the property contrary to Phipps.
    did you do tort law??
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _mk)
    did you do tort law??
    Yeah - did u? Criminal and tort
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNovellist)
    Yeah - did u? Criminal and tort
    criminal and family
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Cool
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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

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