Turn on thread page Beta

Help with Uni law assignment watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi im new user and i have sarted a law degree, and i have received my first contract law assignment and i am very confused on where to start from. i dont want to fail and would really appreciate somehelp and guidance on how to tackle this assignment.

    i have copied the question below for you all to see.

    Janet goes swimming once a week at the local swimming baths owned and operated by the Local Authority. She has a season ticket which permits her to enter without passing through the turnstile. A notice on the turnstile states “the management accept no liability for loss or damage to valuables unless deposited at the office”.

    Janet changes in a cubicle, on the back of the door of which is a notice stating “no liability for acts or omissions causing personal injury”. She hangs her clothes and her gold locket and chain on a hook on the wall. When she emerges from the cubicle she is tripped up by an attendant pulling a hose-pipe and is knocked unconscious and sustains a broken nose.

    When she recovers consciousness she discovers that her clothing and her gold locket and chain are missing.

    Advise Janet

    1500 words

    please anyone who can help small or large will be greatly appreciated.

    thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh My ******* God...

    That's the kind of stuff you have to do at uni for law??

    Uh Oh second thoughts...

    Brutal story aswell.. broken nose?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by specialstar)
    hi im new user and i have sarted a law degree, and i have received my first contract law assignment and i am very confused on where to start from. i dont want to fail and would really appreciate somehelp and guidance on how to tackle this assignment.

    i have copied the question below for you all to see.

    Janet goes swimming once a week at the local swimming baths owned and operated by the Local Authority. She has a season ticket which permits her to enter without passing through the turnstile. A notice on the turnstile states “the management accept no liability for loss or damage to valuables unless deposited at the office”.

    Janet changes in a cubicle, on the back of the door of which is a notice stating “no liability for acts or omissions causing personal injury”. She hangs her clothes and her gold locket and chain on a hook on the wall. When she emerges from the cubicle she is tripped up by an attendant pulling a hose-pipe and is knocked unconscious and sustains a broken nose.

    When she recovers consciousness she discovers that her clothing and her gold locket and chain are missing.

    Advise Janet

    1500 words

    please anyone who can help small or large will be greatly appreciated.

    thanks
    You should read the exclusion clauses and incorporation of terms chapters in your textbook and come back to us with specific issues you're struggling with. You need to do some research before you ask for help - that's part of doing a law degree; or any degree for that matter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Erm I'm sorry I don't do law so can't help :-(
    but if I was that girl I would sue the MoFo that made me fall over...that way i would have enough money to gt a new gold bracelet and enough to get a nosejob.
    Good luck and welcome to TSR :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawIsBraw)
    Oh My ******* God...

    That's the kind of stuff you have to do at uni for law??

    Uh Oh second thoughts...

    Brutal story aswell.. broken nose?
    it's a pretty standard contract assignment if I'm honest. But it does look more like what i did for A level than degree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Having no knowledge on Law, I guess..)

    She'd need to find out their policy on their staff injuring the customers. It wasnt her fault, and there's nothing she could have done to avoid it, but there may be something in the policies of the local authorities saying that if a member of staff puts someone in danger then it is the fault of the worker, so they'd have to deal with the consequences, not the employer.

    There's not much she could do about her lost possesions, but she could always say that she wouldnt have lost them if she hadnt been hurt, and see where that gets her.

    Thats just a cheap guess though, but you're welcome for the attempt
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    it's a pretty standard contract assignment if I'm honest. But it does look more like what i did for A level than degree
    I see, is it normal for me not to get this though?

    I've never taken law as a subject at any level?

    And i've gotten offers for law to start in September?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawIsBraw)
    I see, is it normal for me not to get this though?

    I've never taken law as a subject at any level?

    And i've gotten offers for law to start in September?
    I'm not being funny but its quite a simple assignment that doesn't involve much thought in the application of the law to the question, once the relevant part of a textbook or two is read and understood.
    I doubt a layman would know how to answer the question, nor a law student initally; but a law student should listen in lectures, therefore having an idea of what the question entails, and where to research the answer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi are you ableto advise how i would start the assingment. iv never done law, i am aware they is no write or wrong answer as long as ijustify my answer. but how would i start the assignment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Star*Guitar*)
    I'm not being funny but its quite a simple assignment that doesn't involve much thought in the application of the law to the question, once the relevant part of a textbook or two is read and understood.
    I doubt a layman would know how to answer the question, nor a law student initally; but a law student should listen in lectures, therefore having an idea of what the question entails, and where to research the answer.

    Well I mean, if it were me I have some ideas as to what I would do, but I just thought that the answer that would be expected would be a bit more technical...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawIsBraw)
    Well I mean, if it were me I have some ideas as to what I would do, but I just thought that the answer that would be expected would be a bit more technical...
    Not especially for a first year assignment. Especially if its the first or second formal assignment you've ever been given. Although my Company Law lecturer heavily criticises the simplification of the syllabus of contract law when it involves questions like this, it does no harm to master the basics.
    There is a drastic contrast between the workload and complexity given in first and final year. So I wouldn't complain too much and you'll probably find you are just about coping with what's given to you to start with.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    it's a pretty standard contract assignment if I'm honest. But it does look more like what i did for A level than degree
    Yeah, it looks like it raises a fairly straightforward set of questions which you then have to research. Does either of the two notices actually make a difference to the liability of the local authority/pool management? Does the fact that she did not see one notice, while still following the procedure for entry that the company permitted, change the situation? They permitted her not to use the turnstile--should they have given her separate notice about the fact that they did not hold themselves liable for thefts?

    I wouldn't know where to research this, nor what the formal terms for the situation would be, but the major questions seem to arise fairly easily out of the situation.

    Interesting stuff, and this doesn't seem like a particularly complicated problem.

    Is it true that there's no right or wrong answer to a question like this? I thought that some areas of the law were pretty clear...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by specialstar)
    hi are you ableto advise how i would start the assingment. iv never done law, i am aware they is no write or wrong answer as long as ijustify my answer. but how would i start the assignment.
    I'm afraid that's not necessarily the case.

    You need to identify the relevant areas of contract law - when was the contract formed? which terms have been incorporated? whereas areas such as capacity and consideration aren't particularly relevant

    You need to advise Janet, and that means that you will need to identify potential courses of action for her to take and then explain them by using authority from statute or case law. You'll need to explain why each course is appropriate or inappropriate.

    If you've even been in your lectures you'll know that you cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury (I'll let you find the authority yourself). You should also know that exclusion clauses have to have been incorporated into the contract and this will lead to some discussion over the prominence of the notice etc

    you need to find out what the law is and apply it to your scenario

    I'm not giving you any more help than this unless it's on a a specific issue you don't understand. if I do and you get found out it may constitute ground for unfair means. And besides you should be trying to develop these skills yourself - it only gets harder.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Yeah, it looks like it raises a fairly straightforward set of questions which you then have to research. Does either of the two notices actually make a difference to the liability of the local authority/pool management? Does the fact that she did not see one notice, while still following the procedure for entry that the company permitted, change the situation? They permitted her not to use the turnstile--should they have given her separate notice about the fact that they did not hold themselves liable for thefts?

    I wouldn't know where to research this, nor what the formal terms for the situation would be, but the major questions seem to arise fairly easily out of the situation.

    Interesting stuff, and this doesn't seem like a particularly complicated problem.

    Is it true that there's no right or wrong answer to a question like this? I thought that some areas of the law were pretty clear...
    you're quite right. It's true that there are debatable points, which are as of yet not set in stone, and for this reason you can argue on either side, and may fine that your answer differs to others but isn't wrong

    But you'd struggle to justify something which was just wrong
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Is it true that there's no right or wrong answer to a question like this? I thought that some areas of the law were pretty clear...
    On the face of it, the law can seem clear. I've always found that there's always more material to read on the subject, and the more you do, the less black and white it is and its then up to you to try and resolve some of the grey areas.
    There's technically no right or wrong answer, though in clearer questions, examiners may be looking for set methodology and authority that needs to be discussed in order to answer the question; however, you can provide critical commentary on this too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Is it true that there's no right or wrong answer to a question like this? I thought that some areas of the law were pretty clear...
    Not really. If you don't know what the law is from the get go, you are pretty much stuffed. Law isn't a "there is no right or wrong" kind of subject. Though in the kind of questions you get at uni there will be some ambiguity as to how the law applies to the facts, otherwise you'd have nothing to discuss in the 45minutes you get to do the question :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Not really. If you don't know what the law is from the get go, you are pretty much stuffed. Law isn't a "there is no right or wrong" kind of subject. Though in the kind of questions you get at uni there will be some ambiguity as to how the law applies to the facts, otherwise you'd have nothing to discuss in the 45minutes you get to do the question :p:
    That was my impression.

    I'm not sure there really are "no right or wrong answer" subjects. Certainly in history and in politics there are no right answers to any substantive question worth answering, but there is an infinite number of wrong answers. There's a lot of room for debate, but you have to know what the contours of that debate are before you'll have a snowball's chance in hell of actually answering the question. I imagine much the same is true in law. (And I agree with starguitar above that the more you learn the more ambiguity you might see...)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawIsBraw)
    Oh My ******* God...

    That's the kind of stuff you have to do at uni for law??

    Uh Oh second thoughts...

    Brutal story aswell.. broken nose?
    What were you expecting? :confused:
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?

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.