Uni Stuff > Law

LAW Questions

<< < (2/4) > >>

ninwa:

--- Quote from: LOVEPHYSICS on March 28, 2012, 12:02:47 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page