Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Best way to remember cases?

How do you remember cases?

I am setting key cases out like this:

KEY CASE
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Concerning: acceptance by post; postal rule
Facts- Lindsell made an offer by post to sell Adams some wool, asking for a reply ‘in course of post’. The offer letter was sent on 2 Sept, but did not arrive until 5 Sept, whereupon Adams posted a letter of acceptance at once. By the time the letter of acceptance had arrived (which was after some lengthy time), Lindsell, who had assumed his offer had been rejected, had sold the wool to a third party. Adams claimed breach of contract.
Legal Principle- The court held that the contract was made at the time the letter was posted.

I have never done exams before what do I learn and how much do I include in an answer? Do I need to learn obiter for all? I'm trying my hardest but my uni is rubbish I have no idea how to approach anything. I have no idea about law exam technique?

I suck :frown:

Reply 1

Rybee

I guess it varies from uni to uni. But:

- Don't bother remembering the citation
- The year... Sometimes relevant but I wouldn't go stressing over it, unless the year is key to that era of law
- Keep the facts to a minimum, just stick to the material facts
- Legal principles is what you focus on, how did this case change the law, and why?

For something like Adams v Lindsell it doesn't really matter that it was wool, nor that the letter was sent on 2nd september or arrived on the 5th september, or when the letter of acceptance had arrived, or who the wool was then sold to and who then sued who for what.

For the above in an exam I personally would just say, ... the postal rule as formed in Adams v Lindsell where it was debated as to if and when a contracted could be formed if offer/acceptance was to be provided by way of post. It was held that a contract is formed at the time a letter is posted and not upon receiving the letter.

Then maybe go on to just justify the reasoning behind this and any criticisms etc...

- Why was it decided that the contract is formed upon postage?
- Despite the decision does it cause any injustice? (people may not even know they are bound to a contract if the contract is formed when posted - is this right?)
- Are there any gaps in the law it did not clarify? (email?)
- When doesn't it apply? (exceptions to the rule)
- Academic/Judicial criticisms of the decision?

Obviously it depends what the case is and how important it is. A lot of people waste so much time regurgitating the facts of the case that are so irrelevant. It's much better to stick to a brief outline of the material facts and then really analyse the ratio decidendi by giving an academic/social policy opinion on it.

I hope this helps, in a nutshell I'm trying to emphasise that you shouldn't get too technical with the facts unless the area of law is technical and the exact facts are fundamental to the law. You reap many more marks for briefly outlining the facts and then really analysing them.

To answer your original question I don't think there's an easy way. I write the name of the case, the facts, and then the law behind it. Then just go over it over and over again until I have it lodged in my brain. You can use memory techniques like the method of loci if you're serious about it.

Hope this helps,

Reply 2

The West Wing

1. Definitely don't learn the citation! You would be mental if you did. Year can be useful, but better just to know an 'order' for that topic rather than carefully remembering all the years.
2. More important - level of court, leading judgments
3. Facts only if crucial, points of law and reasoning is what you should get out of it, in your case note the facts shouldn't take up more than a tiny fraction of what you remember. Dissenting judgments? Satisfactory outcome?
4. Has it been modified, considered, affirmed by subsequent law? What did it overrule/decide/clarify? How would it be decided today

Reply 3

jacketpotato

You need to keep it as brief as possible - only have what you ACTUALLY NEED. Rarely should you have more than a line of stuff to learn about a particular case. You don't need the facts for many cases - the facts are only relevant for where judgment calls need to be made based on the facts, you don't need to know the facts if a case just stands for a proposition of law. For example, you don't need to know any facts if a case stands for the simple proposition that a misrepresentation must be a representation of fact. However, the boundary between a representation of fact and a meaningless representation is a judgment call, and for that you may benefit from VERY BRIEFLY being aware of one or two cases where the facts fell on one side of the line rather than the other.

e.g. This would be what appears in my notes for Adams v Lindsell

"Adams v Lindsell - postal rule"

There is nothing more you need to know about that case other than that it is the standard citation for the postal rule. You don't need to know any nonsense about the wool. I know what the postal rule is, as do you, so there is no need to repeat it in my notes. A brief 1-short-sentence explanation of the postal rule might be appropriate in an exam situation.