- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
In exam how should I explain a case; should I only state for example Fisher v Bell or should I explain the case. Please give me an example. What should we do only state the case or explain the case also??????
Please reply
very unusual that you need to explain a case.
there will soon be an exam technique post on the OT site. keep your eyes open for it and you should hopefully get some helpful guidance
Here’s an old post made by werty that I found to be very useful.
“NEVER make up a case name! If you can’t remember a name – put “in a decided case” If you can remember one of the names put “in the case concerning Nestle”. If you can’t remember either name do not make up a name nor put in your answer _______ v _______. That way, you are highlighting your lack of knowledge!
Ideally, you would know the case name in full, but let’s be realistic!In addition, do not even try to remember the year of the case – totally irrelevant!
In the exam, state the principle of law and the ( in brackets ) state the case which you are quoting as authority. “Facts” of cases are almost always irrelevant. If you listen to the OT podcasts, most of the cases are “embellished” by questionable “facts”. The point of telling the story is to give you something memorable to help you learn the principle of law.”
I agree with the above posters that you should concentrate on the principle of law that you are trying to demonstrate that was established by the case or indicated by the case. In the case of Fisher v Bell the ratio decendi of the case was that pure window displays of items in a shop window would not ordinarily constitute an offer for sale of goods but merely an invitation to treat. This would be the point to stress if relevant to an exam question. You should also bear in mind the heavy time constraints the F4 exam poses-an average of 18 minutes per question maximum if not allowing for time to check your paper.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.