Search results

No. It is a background to politics guide for those interested. It also contains a list of logical and argumentative fallacies of which all members, including myself, would do well to keep in mind.

Politics & Argument Guide Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Fallacies of Argument • Suppressed assumptions • Begging the question • Attacking the straw person • Appeals to ignorance • Shifting the burden of proof • Appeal to authority • Appeal to majority • Appeal to tradition • Ad...

I like crests =/

A shame if you're an animal.

http://smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/08/17/DeMenezesfactvfiction.jpg http://smh.com.au/news/world/the-look-of-a-terrorist-it-was-a-police-fantasy/2005/08/17/1123958125899.html

lol I remember that test Supposedly I beat 100% of the candidature - even myself!

Hmm maybe I can adopt a first year and go along

The idea is you look at the evidence, then decide whether it is part of the contract -- if it is not, the parol evidence rule applies and that evidence cannot be used to construe the terms, etc edit: on the broad approach

My teacher was obsessed with the PER at one stage. She said we would be the only ones to know "the true view" -- haha she actually said "you are the chosen ones!" But yeh it is fresh in my head because my last moot involved an issue on parol evidence

Well that is the narrow approach to the parol evidence rule - that evidence of surrounding circumstances is only admissible to resolve ambiguity. However the approach has in recent years shifted towards a more lenient one. See Mason in Codelfa - even when there is no ambiguity in the written...

Alrite then why aren't you reading Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon :p

hahaha gold

That's what I told myself at the beginning of this semester :(

(I was referring to their resolution posts between each other btw)

Maniacguy and thatjazz, can I just commend you both on your interactions above (Edit: literally the one above. I hope you can bring this method to all your future posts.) Exemplary way to express your arguments in my opinion. Well detailed, clear, polite and fruitful. And you even...

Far out man, I want a girl smarter than me! Physical completeness only goes so far

I think we can make our point just as well without referring to Christians as 'nutters'

People shouldn't hurt animals needlessly. It's morally wrong and just irrational. But in my opinion it isn't that bad and animal rights groups can be a bit extreme.

Immaculately said!

I think most universities only offer combined law degrees now anyway (typically 5 years). I know UTS has the straight B Laws (4 Years). But for an extra year you get a whole additional degree. Do a combined program. You learn WAY more by doing a supplementary degree.