property assignment (1 Viewer)

[iwannarock]

Ugh. I started on Friday... I 'researched' on Thursday, and have kept on researching throughout.

Which q's are you doing? I'm doing q1 (which nearly killed me, because I had too much 'research') and q2 (which I thought was going to be hard because there is nothing in the text, but its going well because there isnt much written on it!).

Have v.v.v. rough drafts of both down. But both are utter crap, really. I think a P will be in order. Oh well... it might average me to a C.

I will be so happy to see the end of this piece of shit unit. 9 months of this is hell.

im doing q1 atm.

haven't decided for the other one. either q2 or q3.

the only thing inspiring me to write these............is the fact that i have to pass this so i never have to see this stupid course again.

could you imagine failing and doing a course like this again

back to work i go. still havent started typing.........im about to start a general sort of intro.

 

[iwannarock]

well i jsut hit 1000.

another 500 or 600 to go.

talking about the sustainability part.

then i'll cram in the desireability part.

then its sleepy town nap nap.

then its wake up some time in the afternoon to do it again yaaaaaaaay.

and also..........in this essay im finding im not using many cases. i've only used 2 so far. the rest are just theories and stuff from articles.

although for the sustainability part im gonna talk about the blurring of merits and legality.........the whole disguised merits things courts do with the unreasonableness, irrelevant consideration test crap they do i'll throw in some cases as examples.

it'll be a tight squeeze

 

[iwannarock]

1628 words . one down. one more to go.

bed time.........then its time to decide between q2 or q3.

neither of them are looking pretty.

reading back on this essay i realise i really should have put more effort in...............god help me if i fail and have to do this course again.:burn:

 

[MaryJane]

Agreed re: no cases, mainly just people crapping on about it.

Remember, its not wordcount, but 6 pages. Which, for me, worked out between 1300 - 1400 words (but thats with breaks for a one-line heading and things like that).

I totally agree with the failing. I think I would drop law. My god. I would just die. Stupid admin/const. Stupid Law Admissions Board wanting us to know this crap. Sigh.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

oh shit shit shit

i am going so badly with this essay... or essays...

i was going to do q2 but there is no information i don't know what the fuck i'm going to write for it i am screwed

 

[MaryJane]

Scarecrow. Take a deep breath. We are all in this horrible mess together

When I started I thought they were going to be simple. But they are not. And its horrible. Terrible. Vomitous.

For q2, I started off with a little history: the fact its used in Europe, where it was first defined, what the 'technical' definition is (that 'you must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut if a nut cracker would do'). And then moved on to the fact that everyone basically equates it with unreasonableness - hence its 'indeterminate scope'.

And then, with regard to whether you 'agree' or not is up to you. I argued that I do think there is a distinction between unreasonableness and proportionality, because of the wording of the tests. And the fact that proportionality (ala SA v Tanner) requires illegality - so its basically that whole merits/legality distinction again (as per q1).

Case-wise, I just used Mac Bank, Tanner and Foley v Padley.

Oh, and also talk about its use in delegated legislation (which the above 3 cases do).

Hope that helps! You'll be fine, chick!!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

thanks mj i really do need to stop panicking i still haven't written a word and getting upset about it's not going to write it for me

did u end up agreeing/disagreeing with the question? and what headings did u use (not so i can use them, but just so i can get some idea - i know i want to
~define it
~talk about its applications overseas
~talk about it here as (a) a separate review ground and
(b) as an informative device
but i still dont know how i'm going to make it come together without straying from the question - if i crap on about what it is and how other countries have used it i will have real trouble doing that 'constantly refer back to the q' bullshit they're always on about.
save me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MaryJane]

Oh honey!!! its ok!!

The headings I used were:

"Definition and Unreasonableness"
[insert crap about overseas use, and the actual definition itself

then bring in unreasonableness arguments: how people think it is linked, how others think it isnt, and why. Here is when I started on my (very poor) argument, how I dont think it is the same thing]

"Proportionality and Delegated Legislation"
[Mainly case analysis, and what they all said, and whether it does show that judges decide on whatever they feel like (or whatever the quote is from the question)].

tada! So literally spelt it out for them. Because its easier that way.

You'll get it done. Have you started the other one?

Yes, the 'referring back to the q' is bs, totally agree. What I do is read it paragraph-by-paragraph and explicitly ask myself: "Did I answer the question?". In this question, it was "did I show my agreement enough?". This was a bit difficult because I avoided using the wording of the question, rather using 'merits review' or 'subjectivity' etc.

 

[iwannarock]

*yawn*

lol i woke up half an hour ago.

actually thats not that funny considering the circumstances.

wow mine was 1600.....and still 6 pages.

hmmmmmmmm..........now its time to decide which question to do.

i know nothing about proportionality. although i know nothing about "reasons" garbage.

oh well another long night awaits.:wave:

 

[MaryJane]

Have you got the footnotes in place?

Just a reminder for the 'reasons' question, you have to talk about FOI

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

oh mj i could kiss you. in fact i will kiss you if i see you on campus. hope skittled doesn't mind.

seriously you are such a doll - once i read what u'd wrote i calmed down and re-went through the material and u're right - it's not that hard, i just needed to stop panicking! big online hug xx i'll try and return the favour come property

i've pretty much done the first question - it's woefully crap and needs alot of fixing but at least it's (more or less) done.

heads up for it as well - my friend spoke to ian and he apparently said the only ground he reckons is particularly relevant is unreasonableness so make sure u've got lots on that. also - have a look at the discussion board if u haven't already - he's posted reference to a case handed down last week he says he'll give extra credit for it u manage to incorporate it

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

oh hey - is am i correct in assuming that it is accepted with respect to delegated legislation, but not so much in cases of administrative action? why do u think that is? oh, and do u reckon they do do with it what they want? are u agreeing with the q? i'm thinking they don't really, but there is potential for it develop into that, therefore it is evil and must be killed.

 

[iwannarock]

well im still reading about stuff.

i really shouldnt have picked this q to do.

oh well its too late now.

damn FOI.......damn you to hell!

 

[iwannarock]

hmmmm im seriously contemplating making the switch to proportionality.

fuck im in panic mode.

 

[iwannarock]

well i stuck with this stupid q3.

probably a big mistake. since as soon as this essay hits FOI. bang. crap. terrible. pointless.

and what i dont get.......is my other essay is 1680........12 font double spaced with all footnotes in 2.5cm margins.....and it hasnt even used up the full 6 pages.......theres a little space left on last page.

ummmmmmmmmm

this one is sitting on 1500........maybe i just have gigantic paragraphs. oooooooo im almost finished.......just need to ramble on pointless ly some more.

maybe i should slip in "Ian Stewart is the greatest" into the conclusion somewhere.

my friend did that once in hsc trial english exam.

they wrote "english is great........and mr henry is a champion". it didnt turn out so great.

maybe i shouldnt do it.

 

[iwannarock]

yay fiiiiiiiinished.

im really worried.

although....lets see...........i need 12/30 for each one to get a raw mark of 50.

i think i can do that. hopefully.

reading over htese make me cringe.

oh well......printed......nothing i can do.

 

[MaryJane]

they wrote "english is great........and mr henry is a champion". it didnt turn out so great.

maybe i shouldnt do it.

I've always wondered about whether that would help. If I was a marker, it would make me laugh, at least. Then again, I'm not as jaded as those old teachers

heads up for it as well - my friend spoke to ian and he apparently said the only ground he reckons is particularly relevant is unreasonableness so make sure u've got lots on that. also - have a look at the discussion board if u haven't already - he's posted reference to a case handed down last week he says he'll give extra credit for it u manage to incorporate it

Ooh, ta for that Scarecrow... The only thing is I cant find it. Any idea of what its called, please? And when you say that he mainly reckons unreasonableness is the issue, is that for q2? or q1?

oh hey - is am i correct in assuming that it is accepted with respect to delegated legislation, but not so much in cases of administrative action? why do u think that is? oh, and do u reckon they do do with it what they want? are u agreeing with the q? i'm thinking they don't really, but there is potential for it develop into that, therefore it is evil and must be killed.

Thats exactly right: delegated legislation, yes; no for general admin law. I think this is just because the judges are arses, personally. I think its because they are still associating proportionality with unreasonableness, and so they dont want to bring in a ground of review that is similar in both operation, and potential for merits review.

I am disagreeing with the question. I can see how it could be 'bad' if abused, and lead to judges engaging doing that 'whatever they want' stuff, but I see it as a different ground of review, personally. The tests, while similar, have different 'elements' to them.

:wave:

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

the case is MIMIA v nystrom (2006) HCA

 

[iwannarock]

the case is MIMIA v nystrom (2006) HCA

i noticed that case on the discussion board.

i didnt really figure a way how to incorporate it into q1.

and q3..............lets just say there were a lot of things i didnt know how to incorporate.

 

[MaryJane]

^^ lol

Ah, so its to do with merits/legality stuff, yeah?

.... How?