LAW Questions

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Just some questions. When you are given a scenario, and you are asked to apply the law of one specific case to the facts of that scenario, is it a mistake to be rather legalistic? I am of the opinion that one shouldn't be wasting words (on a rather small assignment 750 words) on arguments that are weak- Most people I know likes doing argument/counter argument/ Re-counter that argument.  In  sense, they are just throwing in the sake of the counter argument so that there is a balance, even if it means that they will rubbish it in the next few sentences or paragraph (because of the law). I may be wrong here, for my tutor keeps on insisting for room on changes and policy in a rather small law application case.

My tutor have been criticising my writing, calling it very odd or strange or long winded. I know that in law, everyone will tell you to keep it short and succinct. But I find that changing my style will detract from my enjoyment in writing for the subject. But obviously, whoever reading it should enjoy it, or at least not get pissed off by it. It will also be very difficult, or it will take time, for change. My question is, how bad is my expression (one of my friends have told me that it is pretty bad)?

Eg: . But if there is such a possibility where it is convenient and lawful for the train to stop before Queanbeyan without affecting its ordinary performance, then perhaps Cameron can argue that the train company had unnecessarily detained him during  the period of time where he was made to wait longer.

Eg: An opinion may be promoted, but the holder of that opinion should not be held responsible for how others might take and effect that opinion. Thus, the propounded words cannot be equated to that of active direction, and although it may promote, it was not sufficiently direct in causing or justifying Stephen to take the actions he did. Therefore, Stephen cannot be taken as an agent.

Eg: Although the plaintiff finally managed an escape, his escape may not invalidate the initial tort which had previously deprived him of his freedom. For it cannot be said that because the plaintiff succeeded in escaping, reasonable means of escape was available and that he was under the impression that he could have exercised his liberty at any time, and without risks during the period he was restrained. In fact, he was under a situation where the impression given was that of an atmosphere of suspense, with the likely possibility of an escalation of violence had he disobeyed. An escape is only reasonable so long as it is reasonably apprehended by the plaintiff that in carrying out the escape, no hazard is attached.



thanks.

[meganrobyn]

It's certainly not *awful*, but I have a law degree and had to read your examples more than once to figure out your meaning. Especially the second one.

Try reading your own work from a stranger's point of view. Would they have to read it twice? Academic writing can often disappear up its own *** (as you'll probably become frustrated with over the course of your uni degree) and when we read a lot of it we can start to write in the same way. I think the best writing can be understood on the first reading. You won't get the nuances, but you should still be able to get the drift.

I feel that, by trying to make your writing succinct and trying to 'pack in' the meaning, you've made it too dense and the meaning too difficult for an outside person to absorb. Try being simpler, more direct, and splitting multiple points into multiple sentences. I think your *content* is really good; let us understand that content more easily.

[ninwa]

Are you studying law at the moment? The reason you are advised to include counter-arguments is because no application of law is straightforward. In the real world (assuming you decide to practice as a lawyer) it is always useful to predict your opposition's arguments so that you can prepare counter-arguments in advance.

Policy is always an important consideration in any substantive law subject.

I think, just from skimming your writing, that you are wasting words on unnecessary phrases, and that is why you are finding it hard to keep within the word limit. Long-windedness is not a good trait to have, especially as you will be extremely pressed for time in law exams and therefore it is crucial that you learn how to write succinctly.

e.g.
An opinion may be promoted, but the holder of that opinion should not be held responsible for how others might take and effect that opinion. Thus, the propounded words cannot be equated to that of active direction, and although it may promote, it was not sufficiently direct in causing or justifying Stephen to take the actions he did. Therefore, Stephen cannot be taken as an agent.

The holder of an opinion should not be held responsible for how others may react to that opinion. Thus, these words cannot be equated to an active direction, and were not sufficiently direct in causing Stephen to take the actions in question. Therefore, Stephen cannot be taken as an agent.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Thanks for the replies.

 Question to everyone. Pretty much everyone have had a piss at how the judges/justices write, but is there really a problem with their writing or their style? (Grammatically/Expression wise)? Is there really a better way in which they can phrase their judgements? If so, why did they choose to write it the way they do?

Meganrobyn: For some reason, I have never been much of a fan of splitting sentences. I like my sentences to flow when I am conveying my ideas, in that everything included in that sentence gains equal attention and importance. I guess that have been a detriment so far. I can be a lot more succinct if I wanted to (hopefully), but for reasons outlined above, I don't do that often because I enjoy constructing sentences and its nuances (I know, weird). Writing in a very clear and concise manner sometimes don't get me the weight/punch I want in my sentences and it feels bland, presentation-wise for me. That's essentially what I meant when I said it would detract form my enjoyment in writing.

Ninwa: Yeah I am doing law (torts) at the moment. Yeah I kinda understand the importance of policy, the whole law v policy thing, even though that is by itself, a gross -oversimplification. What I meant was, that I am not a fan of putting weak counter arguments in for the sake of  it, and then completely rubbishing it in the next few lines. Especially in a very small application task.  I do get the too wordy thing at times, so it is definitely not the first time someone have told me that. But do you think there is an inherent problem with the expression or grammar? That's what I am most worried about for now.

[ninwa]

Judgments are generally not that bad (unless you're reading one from like the 1800s, in which case it's just a matter of "they spoke differently back then"). They tend to appear long-winded because they need to cover every single detail of the facts or law. The slightest inconsistency or lack of clarity could mean that some crafty lawyer will later attempt to circumvent the operation of the precedent by noting some nitpicky difference in the facts or law of the case.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to write a well-constructed sentence, but your long-windedness is actually getting in the way of that. I notice that you have the tendency to repeat ideas and words with the same meaning, perhaps in an attempt to make your sentences longer? There are also some minor errors of expression or grammar which detract from the overall "elegance" (for lack of a better word) of your writing.

Overall, I think that your writing would be much improved if you stopped trying so hard to make them as long and "flowy" as possible. The longer the sentence, the more likely you'll make errors of expression or grammar.

e.g. Although the plaintiff finally managed an escape, his escape may not invalidate the initial tort which had previously deprived him of his freedom. For it cannot be said that because the plaintiff succeeded in escaping, reasonable means of escape was available and that he was under the impression that he could have exercised his liberty at any time, and without risks during the period he was restrained. (grammatically this is not actually a complete sentence) In fact, he was under a situation where the impression given was that of an atmosphere of suspense, with the likely possibility of an escalation of violence had he disobeyed. (disobeyed what? this sentence merely repeats the ideas expressed in the previous sentence and adds nothing to your argument) An escape is only reasonable so long as it is reasonably apprehended by the plaintiff that in carrying out the escape, no hazard is attached.

would be better as something like this:

Although the plaintiff eventually managed to escape, this may not invalidate the initial tort which had deprived him of his freedom. The fact of the plaintiff's escape does not necessarily imply, during the period in which he was restrained, that reasonable means of escape were available or that he was under the impression that he could have exercised his right to liberty at any time without risks. A means of escape is not reasonable if the plaintiff reasonably apprehends that there are risks/hazards attached to such an escape.

[ninwa]

Ninwa: Yeah I am doing law (torts) at the moment. Yeah I kinda understand the importance of policy, the whole law v policy thing, even though that is by itself, a gross -oversimplification. What I meant was, that I am not a fan of putting weak counter arguments in for the sake of  it, and then completely rubbishing it in the next few lines. Especially in a very small application task.

Oh and just addressing this: what is your definition of weak? Most legal problems should be ambiguous enough to allow decently reasoned arguments for more than one side of the issue. I can't count how many times lecturers have said "it's not about your final answer, it's about how you got to your answer".

[LOVEPHYSICS]

'The fact of the plaintiff's escape does not necessarily imply, during the period in which he was restrained, that reasonable means of escape were available or that he was under the impression that he could have exercised his right to liberty at any time without risks.'

That sounds much better.

'In fact, he was under a situation where the impression given was that of an atmosphere of suspense, with the likely possibility of an escalation of violence had he disobeyed'. For that, lol, just reinforcing? Because he was being threatened with a conditional threat.

In terms of weak, I think that is hard to explain, unless you have read the scenario given to us. My tutor told me that I cannot take a sign to be a notice (Halliday v nevill) in case law. From my perspective, they serve the same purpose in the law of torts, especially in trespass to land. Both revokes the implied consent (assuming that both have something like Do not entry unless invited), and in the scenario, the term sign (with a do not entry) was used instead of notice. I took them to be the same.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

This is what i do when I am running out of words. I think it is a bit more succinct than how I usually write.

Hangliding is precisely one of those sport sciences Griffiths J inferred to in his attempt to balance the enjoyment of the general public to that of the rights of the owner. Cameron did just that, and at a height of a several hundred metres, it is difficult to imagine a successful case in trespass. Unless the presence of Cameron hangliding over the airspace interferes with any use Michael might have in mind for his land, there can be no trespass.  The only exception being that instance where Michael dived ‘much lower’ to take pictures, but how much lower remains a question of fact. If it is of a kind and of a height whereby it may interfere with any ordinary uses Michael may make of his property, then a stronger case in trespass lies.

[lynt.br]

"An action in false imprisonment does not necessarily fail where the plaintiff manages to escape from the imprisonment. What is important is whether or not that mode of escape, and any others that were available to the plaintiff, was reasonable."

will edit with more comments later. food time now ^___^

can i just say that hangliding problem is so unbelievably similar to a practice problem I had written for my tutes =/ (but i didn't print it so just a coincidence!)

[LOVEPHYSICS]

lol...it is one of the many issues in the scenario given to us

[lynt.br]

is this monash or anu law?
gonna guess the latter because monash law torts isn't up to trespass to land yet

Idk how similar the two courses are but usually law exams are a massive race against the clock. There isn't time to write long flowery prose. I think your sentences use far too many unnecessary words and that clouds your meaning. I know I had to read some of those passages above a few times before I finally understood what you were trying to say and once I had deciphered it I wondered why you didn't just write it more simply..

e.g.
But if there is such a possibility where it is convenient and lawful for the train to stop before Queanbeyan without affecting its ordinary performance, then perhaps Cameron can argue that the train company had unnecessarily detained him during  the period of time where he was made to wait longer.

Could be written as:
Cameron can argue that the train company unnecessarily detained him during the extra period he had to wait provided it was convenient and lawful for the train to stop before Queanbeyan without affecting its ordinary performance

Putting the subject (Cameron) later in the sentence just makes it confusing, and you don't need unnecessary words such as "then perhaps Cameron can" - 'can' already implies 'perhaps'. "But if there is such a possibility" - 'if' already implies a 'possibility'. ' the period of time where he was made to wait longer.' I don't like this sentence but cannot comment because I don't know the context but perhaps 'extended period of detention' works better?

"For it cannot be said" is not formal written language imo.

"sport sciences" -> "sports"  This is so management speak XD it reminds me of this annoying tutor I had who refused to use the word "highlight" and instead insisted on saying "apply fluro"

"then a stronger case in trespass lies" this sounds like yoda speak haha. -> "then the case in trespass strengthens"


The point of raising weak arguments in a fact situation is to show a comprehensive understanding of all the legal principles arising from the circumstances. There is no requirement that you give equal weighting to weak or futile lines or arguments, however, recognizing them shows you at least identified the issue and understand why it is not relevant. Yo can say something like "X cannot argue Y because of Z" or "X can try and raise Y, however, this is unlikely to succeed because of Z"to dismiss these weaker lines of arguments quickly.

also disagree with the law on the last paragraph in your first post! A hazardous means of escape is perfectly reasonably provided the danger does not amount to a risk to 'life or limb'. A risk of mild harm is unlikely to render a means of escape unreasonable (per McFadzean v CFMEU). this is consistent with the strict approach the courts adopt when assessing whether a means of escape was unreasonable. The high threshold before the Court does recognize escape as unreasonable limits false imprisonments to cases where someone was legitimately imprisoned rather than merely inconvenienced.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Could be written as:
Cameron can argue that the train company unnecessarily detained him during the extra period he had to wait provided it was convenient and lawful for the train to stop before Queanbeyan without affecting its ordinary performance.

But we don't know for sure, it was only a hypothesis. But I get what you mean by cutting out the unnecessary words. I will have to start reading up on Hemmingway again.

For the "For it cannot be said thing...', I dunno lol. Sounds right for me.

The sport sciences thing. I only did that because the judge actually talked about science and what it has offered to humanity (precisely the word science). Just trying to show some link I guess haha.

Lol... I am a fan of star wars, though that wasn't intentional.

Yeah I totally agree with you on the raising weak arguments. I raise it not because I want to argue for it, I raise it to dismiss it or to show why it is immaterial or very weak. But I guess my tutor didn't appreciate that. He was essentially asking me to argue for the difference between a sign and a notice in a 700 words application task.

For the escape thing, that's my interpretation, and being a first year student, I might very well be wrong. The gist I got out was that reasonable means of escape is one that does not involve danger to the plaintiff. The context we were given is this random guy (not a police) making a conditional threat, 'or else' to the other person if he does not follow him to the police station. I guess I just took the condition as an unlawful demand which signify some sort of violent repercussion if the person did not do as he was instructed.

[lynt.br]

hmm wouldn't that then be more of a psychological imprisonment rather than a physical imprisonment, so all you need to consider is whether there was a complete submission of the will per Symes v Mahon?

Although it would be better to go with what your course has taught you. If this doesn't sound familiar at all just ignore it xD

i agree though, word limits in law assessments are the devil :<

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Yeah. Symes v Mahon was my main authority, I just tried to covered all the bases because the guy managed an escape after 10 minutes.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

So I guess what i need to do is:

Omit unnecessary words
Shorter Sentences
Emphasise on directness and clarity