LAW2101 Exam

[lynt.br]

Not sure how many people on VN do this subject but how did everyone find the exam?

I somehow managed to forget about the bonus questions. Stupidest 1 mark ever lost (To anyone not doing law, contract A exams have a bonus question where you get 1 mark for writing your lecturers name and stream on the front of the exam script, I somehow managed to forget about the question....).

Other than that it was freakin' long. Most people I've talked to couldn't write all they wanted to or had to revert to dot points. MY conclusions were in some weird shorthand so it ended up looking like:

P no K G sue G tort (Van Erp).

I ended up writing some 19 pages worth or crap. Question 2 part 1 was pretty bad. Liked 2.2 and 2.3 though, unfortunately no time to do a nice full answer =[

[methodsman]

(To anyone not doing law, contract A exams have a bonus question where you get 1 mark for writing your lecturers name and stream on the front of the exam script, I somehow managed to forget about the question....).

and dw worry, im sure u did fine.

[ninwa]

My friend said she thought it was a pretty good exam. Then again she is amazingly smart so...

The people on Monash Stalkerspace seem to think differently

Most people I've talked to couldn't write all they wanted to or had to revert to dot points. MY conclusions were in some weird shorthand so it ended up looking like:

P no K G sue G tort (Van Erp).

Every lecturer I've had has said dot points are better than nothing, and that abbreviations are fine (and preferred, as you save time) as long as you use the commonly known ones like K, Cth etc. Relax, it's over

[RexPP]

I did it, bloody hard I thought. Questions were difficult and long, which meant I also reverted to dot points at the end.

Not that I think I failed or anything BUT if one were to fail, would you get another chance to sit the exam? Or would you have to repeat the entire unit? Also what percentage fail? A mate said it was bell curve based and 15% have to fail, which seems fucking ridiculous.

[Fyrefly]

The people on Monash Stalkerspace seem to think differently

Oh God.
Law jokes.

Daniel Sapuppo: haha at least we get a bonus mark

Geerthana Narendren: haha I know people who didn't :s And davison should be estopped. That exam was unconscionable

(At least they're better than maths jokes...)

[ninwa]

Not that I think I failed or anything BUT if one were to fail, would you get another chance to sit the exam? Or would you have to repeat the entire unit? Also what percentage fail? A mate said it was bell curve based and 15% have to fail, which seems fucking ridiculous.

I think you have to repeat the entire unit, and yes law subjects are bell curve based

[ninwa]

However don't stress too much - remember this is the first year contracts has been closed-book, so you guys are the guinea-pigs and obviously the law faculty erred on the side of difficulty in setting the exam - so perhaps they'll be nice and have less stringent marking criteria

[lynt.br]

However don't stress too much - remember this is the first year contracts has been closed-book, so you guys are the guinea-pigs and obviously the law faculty erred on the side of difficulty in setting the exam - so perhaps they'll be nice and have less stringent marking criteria

Last year was closed book as well I think.

The exam wasn't 'hard' in that the material was difficult. I think most of the issues were fairly straightforward, the difficulty was managing the length + being able to structure it well. Last years exam (and 2008 as well) was structured nicely so you had formation in question 1 and terms in question 2. This year it was all over the joint, and you didn't have time to go through everything in each sub-question. Essentially I had to jump to the main issue in each question and ignore everything else.

Also what did people think about question 2.2? It was obvious they were trying to replicate the facts of Curtis v Chemical Dry Cleaning but then it wasn't a signed contract anyway so misrepresentation wasn't really relevant?

[RexPP]

2.2 - I spoke about the TPA. If a purchaser makes known the purpose for which goods are being sought, there's an implied condition that the goods supplied will be reasonably fit for that purpose. Alberto made it known that he was seeking a suit that would not be "too loud" yet was given an electric blue one. The provision doesn't apply if the circumstances show that the purchaser wasn't relying on the skill of the seller, but Alberto's situation was in fact the opposite - he said he would leave it up to her judgment.

[mangofruitz]

yea i argued the TPA s74 as well, didnt use curtis as it wasnt a signed document.
weird exam though there was no extrinsic evidence =[ i prepared so much on it! and did any of u have to apply many exceptions to rules, i dont remember applying any =/

but yea overall the shit thing is that its really hard to know an indication of what u'll get. hopefully no repeating next year =x

[lynt.br]

The provision doesn't apply if the circumstances show that the purchaser wasn't relying on the skill of the seller, but Alberto's situation was in fact the opposite - he said he would leave it up to her judgment.

Ahh nice catch, I missed this.

Do they sometimes throw in red herrings to try and trick people into discussing principles which don't really apply in the situation? As in, 2.2 was so similar to Curtis yet I couldn't think of how it would be applicable because it wasn't a signed document.

I've been trying to incorporate everything from the facts into a discussion because I've been told they put everything in the facts for a reason. But sometimes it feels like I'm just trying to shoe horn stuff in. For instance, in 2.2 I had a bit of discussion about the relative expertise of the parties, but it felt very out of place and I wasn't overly convinced by my own arguments =/


Also does anyone happen to have the contract B reading guide on hand?

[ninwa]

Ooh sorry, I forgot that I did contracts two years ago not one, god I feel even older now.

I have the 2008 Contract B reading guide if you want it (it shouldn't be too out of date, you guys seem to be doing similar cases to us still - I still remember Curtis )

[lynt.br]

Ooh sorry, I forgot that I did contracts two years ago not one, god I feel even older now.

I have the 2008 Contract B reading guide if you want it (it shouldn't be too out of date, you guys seem to be doing similar cases to us still - I still remember Curtis )

That would be super helpful ninwa =] Any difference in the cases shouldn't be a problem, the prescribed reading is pretty much everything in the casebook anyway. I really just need it to find out the order the course is taught so I can start reading the right sections.

[ninwa]

Reading guide / tutebook for contracts B 2008

[lynt.br]

Thanks ninwa!