pmtennis said:
I just wanted some advice on how to study this subject, how my notes for the exams and summary notes structured and other general advice you have specific to this or even generally to law subjects.
Some advice for notes and study
Structure your notes under the main topics, such as "Offer", "Acceptance", "Consideration", etc. The structure of the textbook is often a good guide. The subject matter of your notes should be set out in the format of stating a principle, then citing the relevant case authority. For example, "Past consideration is not sufficient consideration:
Roscorla v Thomas (1842)."
Subheadings and a proper table of contents are essential. In an exam you won't have time to rake through piles of paper looking for a particular principle. A table of contents not only allows you to organise your principles into headings and subheadings to create a logical structure, but it also provide fast access. You can set up an automated table of contents in Word.
Whilst your learning notes might be more detailed, and may include the facts of cases and quotes and so on, your final exam notes should be
streamlined. They should be very tight and only really state the principle, followed by an authority. You don't have time in an exam to read huge chunks of text.
After you have completed your exam notes, study them and do past exam papers for practice. Sit down and actually apply the law to a previous problem question.
Some advice for your exam
Read the facts very carefully. Then read them again. Then spot all the issues in the facts and list them on a scrap piece of paper so you can plan your response systematically.
When addressing each issue, do not waffle. Get straight to the point.
In your answers, make sure you address any potential alternative paths of reasoning. For example, if you conclude there was no offer, do not stop there if there are further relevant issues. You would go on to say, "In the alternative that there
was an offer..."
Make sure you come to a conclusion in giving legal advice. That is, form a judgment on what the court would be likely to find. For example, "For these reasons, the contract was validly terminated by Joe." Don't leave the lecturer in the lurch by stating a whole bunch of reasoning without forming any conclusions. Don't be afraid of forming conclusions, as long as you have given reasons. You are not a Supreme Court judge and you are not expected to form perfect conclusions. The lecturer is not really interested in your final call on the facts. They are interested in assessing your ability to understand the law and apply it in a logical way.
If there is uncertainty in the outcome because there are conflicting authorities, then say so. You should present both sides of an argument when relevant, and form a conclusion as to the better view.
Don't bother with full citations. You should ideally cite a shortened case name followed by the date. For example, do not write, "
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401." Simply write, "
Boots Cash Chemists [1953]." Since you cannot italicise case names in an exam,
underline all case authorities.
pmtennis said:
also, if a question on the exam is say worth 15 marks or 30 marks etc, does that mean i have to make 15 distinct points or 30 distincit points, or is the marking scheme (for the 30 mark question for example) that i should make the 5-6 principle arguments and its the elaboration on that through IRAQ that i can get those marks.
No, you won't have to make a set number of points. What the marker will be looking for is whether you have addressed most of the issues, have an understanding of the law and have the ability to apply it. They aren't sitting there counting like that. However, some teachers mark in particular ways so if you are unsure about what is expected of your responses, you should ask your lecturer.
pmtennis said:
and finally, is it difficut to attain D's in contracts? what are some things I could do in answering the questions on the exam (worth 90%) to improve my answers?
Generally no, because it is a very rule-based subject where you have to master the rules and once you've done that you can pretty much tackle any fact scenario that comes at you. Most of the rules are not too difficult. Of course, to master the rules you need to do all your readings and work solidly.
The reason why some people don't do well enough in contracts is because they never understood the rules properly, or never bothered to organise them into a coherent system for study/recall. So if you don't understand something make sure you pursue it with your lecturer until you have nailed it, then write it into your notes -- comprehensively.
