BTC1110 Exam

[HarveyD]

How are you guys going about with revision for this unit?
Just compiling notes with cases/relevant statute section? Do they normally post the answers to the practice exams put up on Blackboard?
Not looking forward to the exam...

[mystikal]

bizz law is open txt book with legislation... so if i were u just highlight the main cases in each section of the book. I did it last semester and the lecturer did give us some sample answers on blackboard...

Just make sure you back up every argument you make with a relevant case. Also, even though it says argue for one side only for some questions, its good to point out what the opposition might argue like just a small line nothing in detail, cause your job is to advise the client and letting them be aware of what the opposition is gonna do is part of that advice (rebuttal).

Maybe set out a template (structure) on how to answer each type of question, (1 for contracts, torts etc...)

bizz law wasnt so bad, it was one of my better scoring 1st year subjects anyways, just have to have a clear head and make sure your arguments seem logical. From memory i think Torts and Contracts and Corp law were the easier ones to set up an answer structure, consumer protection was hard...

[HarveyD]

ah okay, thanks for that!
they didnt put up any solutions for some reason D:
did you happen to keep any of the model answers?

ended up just making summaries to help me answer the questions
Hopefully I can pass haha

[Furbob]

ah okay, thanks for that!
they didnt put up any solutions for some reason D:
did you happen to keep any of the model answers?

ended up just making summaries to help me answer the questions
Hopefully I can pass haha

I know how you feel
Just typing 3~4 page summaries for each of the 5 sections - ACL+Consumer Guarantees, Tort of Negligence, Agencies,Partnerships and Corporations for my prep (will probably post my notes after the exam since im still typing my way through Torts)

looking at the past exam gave me a sadz

[aes_999]

^Bus. Law, I just went to tutor to discuss past exam answers. 3 HR TEST, COME AT ME BRO.

[Furbob]

care to share his tips? :S

*edit*

here's my exam-worth of notes attached. need to print and stick-tab the shit out if for tomorrow.

[aes_999]

Well, it was just a discussion of what the right answers are for each exam question. That's like, about it, I guess. All he says in the end is, state cases, and statutes. Another thing, if it's a particular case, eg. Law of Torts, stick to talking just torts. There's no need to go to ACL, even though you could.

Good luck man. I want to do this well, but the fact that I'd have to do Corps. Law and Tax law in my later years makes me depressed.

[_avO]

When the lecturer said that there will be 4 questions instead of 5, coz of the midsem I presume, does that mean that we can expect the questions to be similar in length from last year's exams? (but instead of 12 marks we're awarded 15 per question). I'm not sure if students had a mid sem last year covering essential elements of a contract hence why they had 5 questions


Also you might want to bring up these points when answering these types of questions
Suing for breach of contracts (contract law):
1. signature rule (eg A signed documents; therefore is bound by the term and condition even though it was not read)
2. PER (only applies to oral terms which is usually the issue)
3. oral statement (reasonable bystander test)
4 collateral warranties (must be promissory, not contradict the contract)
5. exemption clause
6. remedies (determine whether breach of condition or warranty, then what remedies)
7. damages (hadley v baxendale 1st/2nd limb)

Implied law (consumer protection):
1. supplier (state that they're the supplier of the good/service because they provide the good/service to the consumer)
2. consumer (state that consumer bought goods with the amount $$ or make reasonable assumption; if <40000 s3(1) is a consumer and if a service s3(3))
 (s54(1) acceptable quality, s54(2) fit for purpose. if disclosed purpose: treat as a request; if good/service is not fit for disclosed purpose, breach of s55.
4. exemption clause (s64 of acl: all exclusion clauses are void)
5. major failure s260: major failure when goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer given the nature and extent of the failure
6. remedies for breach of s260: reject goods, sue for damages & compensation, s268: terminate contract & sue for damages
7. damages: 1st/2nd limb

[Furbob]

how does one approach discussing about the ACL
I missed my usual tute and went to a different tute that only talked about the ACL but didn't actually go through the questions like Roger does (he's was my tute) so im still slightly lost on the directions

@_avO - roger said that there will be nothing on the formation of a contract and I remember him saying that you are to assume that contracts have already been formed so you dont need to discuss the "formation process" - like we did in the midsem

[_avO]

for negligent misstatement:
1. did B owe a duty of care to A?
Test: special relationship
a) serious matter
b) trusted
c) rely upon information
d) reasonable under the circumstances to rely on the advice
if the above is satisfied, then B owes a duty of care to A

was it reasonably forseeable  that if B's advice was wrong, A suffers loss

2. did B breach DoC to A?
explain 'reasonable person' then apply weighting test s48 WA
a) magnitute of risk
b) expenses, difficulties and inconvenience of eliminating risk (if it was high, could be justifiable, otherwise risk could have been eliminated)

3. causation:
a) 'but for' test: but for the breach, would A have suffered a loss on the advice given by B
b) remoteness: B gave wrong advice to A. Is it reasonably foreseeable that A would suffer a lot due to the breach

4. Defences
a) contributory negligence (liability is apportioned)
b) voluntary assumption of risk

5. remedies.

[HarveyD]

how does one approach discussing about the ACL
I missed my usual tute and went to a different tute that only talked about the ACL but didn't actually go through the questions like Roger does (he's was my tute) so im still slightly lost on the directions

@_avO - roger said that there will be nothing on the formation of a contract and I remember him saying that you are to assume that contracts have already been formed so you dont need to discuss the "formation process" - like we did in the midsem

pretty much what avo said + remember things like unconscionable conduct/unfair contract terms which may also apply

Good luck everyone!

[mystikal]

ah okay, thanks for that!
they didnt put up any solutions for some reason D:
did you happen to keep any of the model answers?

ended up just making summaries to help me answer the questions
Hopefully I can pass haha

sorry bro I didnt see your msg as I had 3 exams this week, 3 horrible exams =( and i didnt have any past exam papers for btc1110 on me anyways umm hope the exam wasnt too hard  for your sake... mine on the other hand have been overbearing.

[_avO]

had two 3 hr exams today including this one. at least this exam wasnt too bad

[Furbob]

yeah this one wasn't too bad although I barely mentioned anything about chapters 9,11,12 (contracts) except about the clause in the first question

...anyway it's over!

[aes_999]

^U mean exclusion clause yeah? I talked a bit with cases on whether it was a proper contract or not. Then I just slapped S64 & S64(A) of ACL, saying you can't put exclusion clause on a consumer contract.