How to Structure a Law Essay
I have got the following Q to do:
"The doctrine of frustration challenges the validity of pacta sunt servanda". Discuss.
It asks me to discuss - shall I state my argument in the introduction?
I have read online that "discuss" means writing two or more sides of the argument and coming to a conclusion......isn't this just being descriptive and regurgitating?
Any guidance would be appreciated!
"The doctrine of frustration challenges the validity of pacta sunt servanda". Discuss.
It asks me to discuss - shall I state my argument in the introduction?
I have read online that "discuss" means writing two or more sides of the argument and coming to a conclusion......isn't this just being descriptive and regurgitating?
Any guidance would be appreciated!
Original post by Type 052D
I do OCR A2 Criminal law. Sorry I can't help (I need help my self LOL).
lol, thanks for bumping my thread to the top anyway
In your introduction you should generally state what your argument (briefly) will be and then in the body you argue for and against the point you are making backing every point up with a case or academic and then conclude by reiterating your view. So through your essay you should be guiding the marker through your logic, so they understand your viewpoint.
Not sure if this is also applicable to a level, however this is how we are told to structure our essays at my uni. Can't really help with the exact question, don't get it myself but hopefully this helps.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not sure if this is also applicable to a level, however this is how we are told to structure our essays at my uni. Can't really help with the exact question, don't get it myself but hopefully this helps.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Baronred
In your introduction you should generally state what your argument (briefly) will be and then in the body you argue for and against the point you are making backing every point up with a case or academic and then conclude by reiterating your view. So through your essay you should be guiding the marker through your logic, so they understand your viewpoint.
Not sure if this is also applicable to a level, however this is how we are told to structure our essays at my uni. Can't really help with the exact question, don't get it myself but hopefully this helps.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not sure if this is also applicable to a level, however this is how we are told to structure our essays at my uni. Can't really help with the exact question, don't get it myself but hopefully this helps.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hey! Thanks for your reply.
I didnt understand what you mean by arguing "for AND against"?
So should I do 1) My argument in paragraph one 2) A counter argument to argument one 3) Counter-counter argument to argument two etc. ?
Or should I do two arguments for and two arguments against, without stating my opinion on which argument is the best?
Your introductory paragraph, is exactly that, you are introducing the reader to a very basic outline of how your essay is going to flow. So if the law points to the notion that the doctrine of frustration challenges pacta sunt servanda then you state that the above statement would appear to be correct in light of the law, if the prevailing opinion says otherwise then you say the statement is not entirely true (again I can't really point out what you should say because I don't get the question) but you are signposting your whole essay from the start so when the reader gets to your conclusion they can see your argument and understand your viewpoint.
In terms of the rest of the essay you are giving a more detailed explanation of the different views so it would be in the form of:
Para 2: how the doctrine of frustration DOES challenge pacta sunt servanda and explain how the law shows this
Para 3: how the doctrine of frustration does NOT challenge pacta..
Then conclude and reiterate the view you took in your intro.
Don't forget to cite relevant cases or academic opinion to back up each point you make.
Hope this makes more sense.
PS Is this a contract law question??
Posted from TSR Mobile
In terms of the rest of the essay you are giving a more detailed explanation of the different views so it would be in the form of:
Para 2: how the doctrine of frustration DOES challenge pacta sunt servanda and explain how the law shows this
Para 3: how the doctrine of frustration does NOT challenge pacta..
Then conclude and reiterate the view you took in your intro.
Don't forget to cite relevant cases or academic opinion to back up each point you make.
Hope this makes more sense.
PS Is this a contract law question??
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Answering law exam questions
- Does anyone have Law a level essay writing techniques??
- A Level Law help!
- Aqa sociology A level
- Public International Law Problem Question Structure
- AQA A-level law example essays
- History A-Level
- Study techniques!
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- Law Essays and Problem Questions - How to write 1st class/high 2.1 answers
- [deleted]
- Bad grades
- Which of the A-Level combinations will be best for Law?
- Law or Politics-A level
- How important is English at A levels for Law?
- Should I drop sociology for English literature?
- Taking a gap year and applying for law
- How best to prepare for the LNAT?
- New to the forum, wanting a little advice!:) Y11
- History degree essay question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
