The Student Room Group

OCR A Level Law Paper 3

does anyone understand the advanced info?!
could someone please tell me what the evaluation essay is for paper 3, section B?
I do contract law, idk if you do human rights but for contract it could be intention, consideration, privity & agreement(offer and acceptance)
Reply 2
Yes, I do contact. I just found the booklet for the evaluation. Thank you so much :smile:
hi all, just wondering if anyone has a good quality model answer for law and morality? as my teacher gave us one but his essays are very basic and i need an A* morality essay to bump up my marks for when i **** up human rights
‘The law should enforce morality’ Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement (20)Law is where rules are imposed on society to control the actions of individual’s and those who disobey these rules will be sanctioned. Morality is what society deems as immoral and unacceptable.Positivists believe that laws are valid if made by the legislative power, these rules do not have to satisfy moral authority. Jeremy Bentham believed that if one finds the law offensive, this does not affect its validity and criticised the natural law theories for confusing legal issues and moral issues. Laws made by the German government were still valid according to Hart, as they were made by legal authority, thus enforceable. This created the Hart v Fuller debate, in which Fuller said that these laws were not valid as they went against morals and were not actually reasonable as it was absurd as to why immoral rules should be legally enforced on society, though not fair and valid. Indirect to natural law, there are people who reject positivism and believe that laws are only valid of they are compatible with moral authority. Aquinas believed that law and morals came from God. Natural law is where there is a higher law to which law must obey and if there is a law which disregards the natural code, it should be avoided, though it would seem to be based on human rights. Aquinas saw it as coming from God, whilst Aristotle believed it came from nature.Devlin thought that the law should set the basic standards of morality and that should aim for higher standards. He argued that actions of society depend on a shared or common morality and that society may disintegrate if morals were not upheld. One’s freedom must be tolerated and that there are limits to the right of society to interfere with immoral actions. Hart opposed with Devlin and this created the Hart and Devlin debate, in which Hart proposed a more limited role for the law in the enforcement of morality and believed that society should not interfere with immoral conduct. Hart disagree with Devlin’s and believed that the law should not enforce morality as it would infringe one’s freedom. Some may agree with this argument as matters in a private environment should be kept within the family and not one based on society’s thoughts of morality. Delvin’s argument goes against HRA s8, which protects your right to respect for your private and family life. He believed that when a behaviour was seen as intolerant and full of disgust, only then should law have to intervene with the one’s actions. An individual’s freedom should be limited and restricted to protect the fabric of society. Devlin believed that society may use the law to keep morality the same way as it uses law to sustain anything, essential to its existence, which is a theory based on an objective morality. Moreover, Devlin’s opinion is not compatible with pluralisms as everyone has different beliefs. Hart was influenced by the utilitarian approach of Mill and believed that law and morals were separate, both thought that the minority in society should not be made to agree to the will of the majority. Mills argued that society should not impose morality and that people should have freedom, provided no harm is caused. Mills imposed the belief that the law should only interfere in moral matters where people need protection from harm. If there happens to be harm done, this must not outweigh the harm that denying one’s liberty would do. Hart went further and said that the law should not enforce morality as it would infringe a person’s autonomy. In account to Mills principle, it did bring in some criticism as it would be a challenge to determine what Mills constituted as harm, whether it was only physical or otherwise. Moreover, it would be difficult to decide whether a foetus would include other members of society. The harm principle does not consider consent given, such as in the case of R v Brown, where a group of men consented to sadomasochism acts, which therefore affects liberty as if someone is given as even if they commit to acts on someone who has consented, they may still be prosecuted, which may not coherent in the minds of general public. To conclude, I believe that the law should not intervene with morals as some moral rules may seem unjust to individuals, such as the need to deprive freedom from a murderer is vital as to protect the public from any further harm however it is a moral rule that one should not deprive anyone from freedom. Moreover, in certain situations morals would be beneficial if enforced into legal rules as they are rules which are generally agreed upon by the whole of society and if disregarded, it is visible that the offender is doing wrong and should thus be dealt with appropriately. However, for laws to be widely accepted by society they must broadly correspond to most people’s moral values. Overall, I believe that the law should enforce morality, if it is in the public’s interest as they are public citizens who will be mostly affected by those rules and therefore they should have liberty in decisions that will impact them.
John Salmond's definition of law is a body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice. Whereas Philip Harris states that morality is a set of beliefs, values and standards of behaviour. Law and morality have tended to overlap in situations where, as morality changes, the law changes as well, as in R v R 1991 Marital Rape case. Some laws are clearly based on moral values such as murder and theft. Howeverm law and morality sometimes diverge, as a result of often disagreement on contrevertial topics, such as euthanasia and the Marriage Act of 2013.
The UK as a pluralist society means that there is a vast amount of ethnic and religious diversity. Durkheim suggests that it is inevitable that in a pluralist society, it makes it extremely difficult to share a singular opinion as everyone has their own views on morality and whether laws should enforce it. Parliament sometimes use Private Members Bills to pass contrevertial laws, such as the Abortion Act 1967, which has led to campaigns from both Pro-choice and pro-life activists. Therefore, it is hard for legal intervention on moral issues in terms of creating the idea of a shared morality

Positivists such as Aquinas believe that laws come from a higher authority, and in this theory, law and morals come from God. In a way, this is true as we still use the Ten Commandments to follow rulings like 'thou shall not kill', showing that it is a plausible theory. However, the weakness of this is one of which we now live in a modern society of religious differences, so this view isnt widely used.
Fuller argues that law achieves social order as it sets down the guidelines of general rule in which people can orient their behaviour. He identified 8 things for a valid legal system, including understanding, consistency and published. There have been debates in the past in which Natural Law has opposed positivist theorist such as Hart. The Fuller/Hart debate consisted of Fuller arguing that, as the laws in Germany WW2 were so immoral at the time, they were invalid and so people should have followed them. Whereas Hart argued that regardless of whether these were immoral, laws are laws so they were valid and people should have followed them. One the one hand, judges followed the natural law theory and found people who followed nazi law liable.
Devlin took a paternalistic approach to natural law, stating that society has shared morals and even if people act privately which doesnt concern anyone else, it can still be immoral and beyond the tolerance of the reasonable man. Immoral behaviour, even in private, harms society

Positivist utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham are concerned with what the law is. The natural law theory is confusing legal and moral issues and is a 'nonsense on stilts'. Similarly JS Mill states that society should work towards the greatest happiness for the greatest number, meaning it is just even if it leads to social inequality. For example, Sarah's law on the disclosure of locations of pedophiles increased the happiness of the greater community. However, it arguably concerns the fact that there is no individual liberty for the convict.

Hart, another positivist, rejected the classical positivist view, and rather stated that law and morality should be separated. The minority should not have to conform to the majority. law should not enforce morality as it infringes individual autonomy, and so cases such as assisted suicide should be allowed as it is no harm to anyone else. If someone is in absolute agony or has a life ending condition, the fact that it doesnt harm the rest of society means that law shouldn't intervene. Similarly, the Wolfenden Report on homosexual acts and prostitution 1957 led to the sexual offences Act in 1967, meaning that homosexuality was allowed. Furthermore, the case of Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy stated that a gay couple could book shared accommodation in hotels and guest houses, reflecting the positivist theory through the strengthening of gay rights. This has led to the Devlin/ Hart debate in which Devlin argues that where disgust or indignation is deeply felt, the law should criminalise behaviour. However, Hart stated that people should be free to pursue their idea of a good life so law shouldnt interfere with private morals.
To conclude, law should not enforce morality as what is done in private does not harm the rest of society. However, it is understandable that this is difficult in the circumstances that it is not just to perform acts in which the majority does not find moral
Hi, for my mocks we are using the 2022 paper. what were the questions on contract law?
I completed my a level law last year and I will be completely honest, I do not even remember one thing from contract law or tort law as it has been a nearly a year since I opened my law book. Can you remind me of what is in contract law ? Specify the topics in contract law and I may be able to remember.
Original post by laylaxxstanton
Hi, for my mocks we are using the 2022 paper. what were the questions on contract law?

What is the point of cheating? You can't do that in the real exam.
(edited 1 year ago)
Atleast if you know the information, you can do good for the mock. You will then retain that knowledge and that same topic may come up for your actual a level. Wouldn't call it cheating, its utilizing your time wisely
Reply 10
Hey what we’re the questions for the contract paper, especially the evaluation question??
Original post by Mashy.x
Hey what we’re the questions for the contract paper, especially the evaluation question??

cant remember completely but its best if you revise all of contract and remember the key points. I remember offer and acceptance, intention to create legal relations and consideration was part of it.
Reply 12
Original post by AyoDaniels
I do contract law, idk if you do human rights but for contract it could be intention, consideration, privity & agreement(offer and acceptance)

So these are the ones section B would be on this year is what you're saying (?)

Quick Reply