contracts assignment (1 Viewer)

[scarecrow_of_oz]

well i must say i'm very disappointed no one's come on complaining or talking about the law204 assignment - where are all the 2nd yr law people?? i fully intended to piss away half the day crapping on about how much i don't want to do the essay and how crap it is that we've been told to do contradictory things by different tutors about wat to do to pass it. guess now i'll just have to go and write the damn thing.
ah well, hopefully the turnout will be better for the 205 assignment!
good luck with it all

 

[iwannarock]

hey hey i'm doing that assignment too!

im totally clueless. i don't know how to relate all these cases to the hypothetical.

how is it that Felicity will get here money back?

all the cases i've read involve something like.........well if Felicity said she was gonna give $5000 but never did.........then Deidre would try to get the money for that.

how does it work when its the other way around?

ah well i'll just soldier on

 

[MaryJane]

Oh wow, there are other law people here!? How exciting!

I did the assigment in 2 days. I thought it was pretty straight forward. It all hinges on the practical benefit rule as in Musumeci. Felicity cant get her money back. There are heaps of alternative arguments, but because of the close fact pattern in this hypothetical and Williams v Roffey Bros, and the precedent of Musumeci, it would be more weighty.

I'm more concerned with 205, I think there has been more contradictory information in tutes for crim than contracts. Plus, contracts is only worth 20%.

 

[iwannarock]

damnit you make it sound so simple.

but williams and musumeci all look at it from the beneficiaries point of view. they involve the modifiying party saying we'll give u this extra money. but then they dont end up giving the money

so the plaintiffs say "i want that money, and even though i've done nothing extra im gonna get it"

and they do cuz of the practical benefit rule you said.

but how did you work that into the hypothetical. because felicity already paid the money?

ah well i have no real points for how felicity would get the money, its all downhill for her.

hope i pass

 

[MaryJane]

It doesnt matter whether the money was paid or not. The principles state that the prac benefit rule comes in, and acts as an exception, if the parties were in a contract regarding goods or services, and that it would be better for "b" (ie felicity and D&G) to accept that there was consideration by "A" (Deidre), than "any likely remedy", which, I'm assuming in this case will be breach of contract. So the money doesnt matter. And an argument for felicity is the existing legal duty rule (although as prac benefit is an exception to it, it wont succeed).

If you read the principles, and go through it thinking of Deidre as A and D&G as B, it will make a lot of sense. And you just work it into the essay by saying "a counter-argument for D regarding the existing legal duty rule is prac benefit, as stated in Musumeci" etc etc...

Once you get going, it flows!

 

[iwannarock]

cool thanks alot it sounds like im on the right track.

because i mentioned that Felicity would use the existing legal duty rule although that was only to setup that it wouldnt work because of the practical benefit thing.

seems i was just confused about things that didn't matter

its time to write away!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

yeah that's pretty much how mine's structured too. hey do u guys know wat's the go with the whole subheadings thing? cause our tutor said don't use them (and she's marking it) but then my friend's talked to the lecturer who said if u don't use them u can't get above a credit because they're part of the marking guidelines. WTF? the LPSM thing says to use them too.

 

[MaryJane]

Thats interesting. I emailed Susan aaaages ago asking about the LPSM headings, and she said it was fine to use them. I thought I would need them, but it all flowed. If you go back and re-read your tort assignment it helps.

I wrote the essay out like this:

Listed the issues regarding the contract (L)

started stating the arguments on either side, and the common law which supported it (P & S) (eg. D&G could argue that, according to the existing legal duty rule (footnote), D provided no good consideration, and thus the money is recoverable by D&G)

And concluded (M).

Did you guys mention anything about the fact that Deidre ended up getting all those extra contracts from participating in the fashion show? I figured it could be a point, but couldnt find any cases that really discuss it.
Ta da!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i didn't mention it. did anyone go into third part issues?

 

[MaryJane]

Nope. I just covered the basics, you cant really do much more with a wordcount that includes footnotes! Grrr...

I'm off to hand it in now.

 

[golfstick]

this assignment shat me.

at first, 2000 was going to be had to fill (i thought i'd need to crank up the bullshit a few levels) but in the end it was painfully constrictive

it's over now. phew. now for crim. I think I'm going to like crim better. It's more free, there will be a bigger range of responses that get good marks. Contracts scared me a bit, even reading this thread (I only saw it after I handed it in) i was scared that someone was going to mention a really important point that i'd missed. but yeah, with contracts, you can get fucked up if you miss something because it's so, i dunno, torts-like whereas crim is more bullshitty like juris.

 

[iwannarock]

i was thinking about the 3rd party issue. but honestly did they really expect us to find a case that could be used for that. thats HD material or something lol.

i got it done seems ok.

i agree about crim being easier. look at the question its so damn free. reminds me of the jurisprudence days where you could just bullshit and bable and sound "smart" to get a credit or something.

i hated torts........if you didn't know you didn't know and that was that. you couldn't get yourself out of a tough question.

im guessing a criminal thread will pop up soon. and despite what i said, i'll probably be in there panicking.

 

[golfstick]

I will be joining you shortly.

 

[MaryJane]

Now I know why juris is a prereq for second year law: so we know how to read all the bullshit philosophical crap, and base arguments on theories established 10,00000000 years ago, that is criminal law.

 

[iwannarock]

to be honest i haven't even touched the books for criminal. i read about 4 pages for when i had to talk about something in class but thats all. i'll have to get reading about punishment tomorrow. don't you hate the articles where the writer uses big words and acts all sophisticated when really they could just say everything in a couple of sentences. who are they trying to impress. thats all i remember from jurisprudence.

i can hardly be enthusiastic about criminal considering the sad state of the lectures. sometimes i only go because i'm curious as to see how many people show up. last time i went there were only 28 people. think about that. like 250 people do law and there were only 28. hilarious!

i'm gonna hand in an essay that reflects this, apparently the marking isn't too strict either. jeez i love my low low standards of being completely content with passes in uni

i just want my degree. i'll just sort of burn the part that says all i ever got was p's

 

[MaryJane]

Lol, thats right, hide the evidence!

My figuring is that I'll only try and get decent marks (over a Cr) once I start to pick the subjects that I want to do, and practise in (eg. family law.. I want a HD!) So I can say to my employer "well, yeah I did crap in juris, and ethics, but this is law, and neither really apply".

Who is your tutor? I have Katherine who makes us do the 'facilitating' of the class.. havent dont it yet, I'm doing... ah.. week 11. Shes a good tutoress, so I cant really ask for much more. She knows her shit.

But the lecturer- holy crap, is she insane? I went to the first lecture, realised just how pathetic it is, and havent gone to another since the Rodney King video (where the lecturer stood up front and started talking to herself and waving her arms around, like she was getting angry at the students because the vid wasnt working). My friend has her as a tutor, and she said she's just as whacked in tutes. Who said they mark easy? I can see how the lecturer would, but Katherine seems to expect a lot.. maybe if I dont like my mark, I'll appeal and ask the lecturer to mark it for me!

 

[iwannarock]

i was thinking of doing that. working hard 4th and 5th year to get some distinctions in my electives but i can't see that happening.

the lady who is the lecture is my tutor. oh how awful it is. to rock up at 9am on a monday to fall asleep in class. its no wonder i haven't read a thing yet.

i was originally in the 3pm mon tut.........which she also teaches. i moved to the 9am one ages ago but. i have told her so many times now that i have moved to the 9am one and she still doesn't get it. i hate to think i STILL don't exist on that roll as according to that i've probably missed like 6 tuts.

"did you mark my name, i'm from the afternoon tut i moved into this one about 3 weeks ago"

"ohhhhhh thats where you've been"



this was despite me telling her this the very first time i moved into the class........i had to keep on reminding her. i hope this all pays off.......like her marking real real easy or something

oh and i just heard it was easy off some people in the contracts lecture. people that FAILED contracts and are doing it second time around, but said crim was easy.

 

[iwannarock]

450 words down on my crim assignment.

boy i'm really hating this. i take back everything i said. this assignment is just annoying me. its no fun at all. i hate it.

i sure am going slow tonight. hopefully i'm more productive tomorrow. i just need to get on a roll, where everything just flows and before you know it you've typed like 1800 words and are ready to conclude the son of a bitch.

 

[golfstick]

700 down

2:13am

not fun

I hate Foucault. He can go suck my balls

ENGLISH?

 

[iwannarock]

that foucoult retard needs to learn to use paragraphs. bloody hell the language is bad enough........but your eyes get lost amongst it all.

well im onto my conclusion now, 1800 words down.

i haven't written an essay this bad since year 10 legal studies. i'm all washed up and past my prime.