Re: Legal Authority in Law.
santaslayer said:
Most problem law questions usually require legal authority for justification purposes.
Its basically like using quotations to support something you say. E.g. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff who must prove the actions of the defendant posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of damage or loss to a class of person of which they were a part of on the balance of probabilities
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 . Its like in anything, in a psych essay you need to have references to support your argument...hope that helps.
Edit: Hmm re-reading that I was too lazy to pinpoint my reference... I found a better example from my second assignment. Here were actually had to pinpoint to support our summary of the ratio
The Justices again made reference to the differences in s 7(2) and s 8(2) of the Appropriation Act and their conclusion that departmental items are not restricted by the outcomes contained in the PBS. Thus the justices found this argument to be irrelevant to the proceedings. Combet v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] HCA 61 at[128]-[129], [134], [163] just shows I didn't make the ratio up