Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[tcstudent]

also about the court thing and not being bound, i said how court of appeal is the highest in victoria therefore it is not bound by its own precedents, furthermore the material facts of the case may have not been similiar thus being about distinguish its own precedents. not exactly what i wrote but it was one of those tricky things like last year LOL

[Flor]

DUDE, what?

it says the supreme court not high court??

Yeah, whoops. I was meant to say incorrect, typo

[tcstudent]

Yeah, whoops. I was meant to say incorrect, typo

haha all good man, this is the only subject i actually want to not be over for some reason. it has been an awesome subject that i am happy to say the time i put in it was worth it. the exam was pretty easy.

[Flor]

Such a great exam, I loved it. So glad that there was hardly anything on pre-trial procedure or operation of the doctrine of precedent. The VCAT question did trip me up a bit though...

VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.

[Flor]

haha all good man, this is the only subject i actually want to not be over for some reason. it has been an awesome subject that i am happy to say the time i put in it was worth it. the exam was pretty easy.

Yeah, same here! Legal is really great subject, so glad I took it up this year

[M_BONG]

How did you guys find the last question?

I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?

Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.


Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?

I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people

[Flor]

How did you guys find the last question?

I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?

Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.


Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?

I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people

Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?

[M_BONG]

Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?

Omg really? I thought it said discuss two features?
FK!! I was so tempted to talk about a third feature to make up my points.... but I know if they specify 2 points, they won't read the rest.

[NickGeo34]

VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.

I wasn't thinking straight when I did that one. I said that VCAT is great for minor civil claims less than $10,000 or when a non-monetary order (e.g. injunction or interim order) are being sought, then went on about how people might want to use the courts for more complex civil cases (e.g. class actions/contractual disputes) or to challenge the law through statutory interpretation... (Pretty sure I bullshitted so hard on that question)

[tomash95]

VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.

I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.

I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.

[MrCommerce]

For the court of appeal question, how many marks would i get for saying: that precedent is only legally binding upon inferior courts in the same hierarchy where material facts are similar. Since decisions previously made by the Court of Appeal are on the same level of the hierarchy, such decisions are merely persuasive and thus the Court of Appeal is not legally bound to follow previous decisions it has made.

I didn't mention disapproval :S

[tcstudent]

How did you guys find the last question?

I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?

Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.


Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?

I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people

DARN man that was a shame, me personally filled up the whole book even the extra response because some questions did not provide enough lines. not that having more discussion is always better.
but i think because you saw there was 15 mins left you started to panic and didn't have as good discussion as you hoped when doing trial exams for example.

i use fair and unbiased hearing,

intro had some crap about our legal system consists of F.A.T and then i stated how the adversarial system allows for a fair and unbiased hearing. but dw dude, you most likely smashed the other questions. i swear all of us this year have been great in the legal thread. answering all the other peoples questions. and plus debating with megan lol even though she is always right.

[Flor]

I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.

I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.

Yeah, I was going to do that, but I just didn't have time for that.

Omg really? I thought it said discuss two features?
FK!! I was so tempted to talk about a third feature to make up my points.... but I know if they specify 2 points, they won't read the rest.

Idek anymore! I'm so scared now :S SOMEONE CLARIFY.

[tcstudent]

I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.

I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.

YEAP good man, i did not completely agree either, because courts are way better with ensuring one does not dominate proceedings. therefore by using courts through the rules and procedure it ensures that both parties have an equal change to present their case.

[mattbrown19]

how do you even analyse impact of high court interpretation on div of law making power using one case only? o_o