Hey, by any chance, does someone know when we will get the results of the resit ? I couldn't find any statement about it on the SP... Thanks anyway, enjoy your holiday y'all:)
Still nothing, they're honestly taking such a long time
Hey, by any chance, does someone know when we will get the results of the resit ? I couldn't find any statement about it on the SP... Thanks anyway, enjoy your holiday y'all:)
Hey guys how do I do the difference between the main and the side argument ? Thank you
Im looking for, anyone who passed the second assignment to helping me for resit?
For task 2, do you all think it is an immunity, a right in the positive content or a right in the negative content? I'm thinking it is a right, but I'm sure whether it is in the positive content or I the negative. Can you maybe explain which one you chose and why? Mainly cause I'm a bit confused between the two now
View 9 more comments
Yes for task 3. Yeah, I have about 16 premises !
16?! Wow that is really a lot. I'm still changing my premises cause I'm just kinda unsure about the whole thing tbh. The main argument confuses me so much
hey what do you have for the dissenting opinion, which question relevance of the court reason, I had something about the statistics but I am not sure. If anyone can help ? Thank y
View 1 more comment
I used the statistics argument as well! Not sure if that's right, but I feel like it's the most logical reason to use there
Thank you !
Hi guys, in task 3 all my premises are Modus Tolens. So how will any of the premises be externally justified?
View 4 more comments
Why does it matter if you write in modus ponens or in modus tollens?
Exactly @Giorgi; it doesn’t
How did you formulate the mani question for task 1?
i worded like: whether there was a difference in treatment between pupils based on their ethnic or origin, and therefore violating art. 14
I've only found one external justification in task 3, did anyone find more?
View 2 more comments
3
if have as external justification: one side argument supporting the premise and the art. 14
How are you guys preparing for the upcoming exam? 🙏🏼
One of the most effective ways to study for it (at least that's what I believe), is to print all lecture slides and documents relating to the reference list and practice the fundamental legal concepts
Only lecture?
guys what is the main argument in q4?
In my opinion, it is that there was indeed a difference of treatment but which was made between ordinary and special schools and not roma and non roma pupils
sorry guys, but am I the one only having troubles answering in the text boxes for the assignment ? When I start writing on the 1st box, my text is typed in the second box... any ideas on how to solve this, if anyone has encountered this problem ? Thank you
Found a solution, if it can help anyone. You have to type in the previous box, in order to have the text typed in the next box. So for the first bow, you must start writing on the 4th box.
hello, for task 3 of the assignment my reconstruction looks like this: but I feel like, I missing the big picture here, would anyone give me advice to improve my reconstruction? Thank you 1) Czech did not offer proper safeguards to education to take care of the disadvantaged class 2) Therefore (Roma) pupils were put into schools offering a more basic curriculum. Schools which compounded theirs difficulties rather than tackle their real problems or to male efforts in order to integrate them into ordinary schools Therefore those pupils will be more limited in theirs jobs opportunities The legislation applied had disproportionated prejudicial effects on the Roma community Therefore the Roman community suffered the same discriminatory treatment. Therefore Czech Republic violated art. 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol 1
View 2 more comments
What was your argument for task 4?
I think the most complex part is 4 i havent done yet...:(
Is lecture 10 the only "source" we should consider to answer Task 4? Is negation and denying the same?
I worked with that lecture, and yes, that is the exact same.
art. 14 grants immunity, but I do not remember how do we state that someone has immunity (against?) everyone; I mean for a right you can use "a right against x", but for immunity I do not know what's the appropriate word, if anyone can help me with that?
x has, as against y, an immunity to having x's legal rights affected (?)
If I understood correctly, an immunity is against someone's disability, right? If so, are you then saying that the applicant has an immunity against everyone's disability? This confuses me, because originally I was considering article 14 to grant a right in the negative content - "the right against 'x' to not discriminate..."
Is Judge Sikuta's main argument a legal syllogism?
Im wondering same thing!
What conclusion do you have then?
Premise (1) is accepted by the Court [Paragraph 17, second sentence]. Premise (2) and (3) are accepted by the Court [Paragraph 13, first sentence]. Premise (4) rejected [acceptance of the risk does not entail consent] (5) Rejected [there was countervailing considerations] Premise (6) is rejected Premise (7) is rejected Premise (8) is accepted (9) is accepted Premise (10) is rejected [Paragraph 20] (11) is rejected
Two arguments. Therefore the reconstruction is as following: (1) Accepting employment at schools for children with behavioral problems implies accepting the risk of minor assaults. (2) Participating in sporting activities implies accepting the risk of minor assaults. (3) Participants of contact sports validly consent to the risk of suffering minor assaults. (4) Excepting to suffer minor assaults and knowingly accepting the risk are reasons for voluntary participation to count as valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault. Therefore, (5) unless there are countervailing considerations, employers of special school validly consent to the risk of suffering minor assaults. (6) There are no countervailing considerations. Therefore, (7) voluntary acceptance of employment in a school for children with special needs counts as valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault. (Analogical Argument) (8) Whenever valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault is given, allegation of assault should be dealt by courts only if the violence reaches a level reaches a level at which a criminal sanction is appropriate. Therefore, (9) In the present case, the allegation of assault should be dealt by a court only if the violence has reached a level at which criminal sanction is appropriate. (10) In the present case, the violence has not reached a level at which criminal sanction is appropriate. Therefore, (11) the present case should not be dealt by a court. (Universal Modus Ponens)
Has anyone attempted to do the mock?
Does anyone know where to find the complete Dillon v Legg case?
Hey it was in the document, but here is the link again: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dillon-v-legg-32899#FFN_3
Does anyone know where the questions for the mock exam are
on um blackboard, under skills and course materials
No area was marked for this question
Thanku so much for doing this. Much respect for you
No problem! I’m happy to help
No area was marked for this question
in task 1 examples e and f can be both universal affirmative or particular affirmative, depends on interpretation and context
thank you, your notes are very good and helpful!
Hello, has anybody answered last part of week 4? Can you help me?
Did anyone receive their grades? Or is this once again a prime example of the university’s incompetence!!
View 5 more comments
I've received my grades only for paper and quiz. if I didn't get any grade for other deliverables (guided choice etc) it means that I failed them or that I should wait?
You should wait since there is a delay in the publication of the grades.
Does anyone have any suggestions for a good comparative research Q with 2 contrasting jurisdictions?
if I don’t submit my paper, can I use the same research question for the resit? Or the topic platform governance will be changed?
resit topic will be the platform governance and yes you can use the same question
Thank youuu :)
Someone knows the answer of question 11 week 2?
Who is the most prominent supporter of legal transplants? Alan Watson?
yes
Regulatory competition and the extra-territorial effect of laws are also convergence forces?
Someone knows the answer of question 21 week 4?
check p 219, you have 3 examples within the first paragraph
Page 218 and 219
Is the answer on question nr 2 of week 1: ‘which centuries mark the emergence of unified national law on continental Europe?’ - 19th and 20th centuries or - 20th and 21th centuries? I am doubting since Tamanaha says 20th and 21th centuries, but we learned in the legal history course that codification movements already arose in the 19th century...
It is 18th and 19th century. page 51 last paragraph
Does somebody have an answer for question 17 week 1 about examples of legal convergence?
check under course materials > potential quiz questions > quiz Q&A if you haven't done already (in any case, it is written there that you should check the lecture; an example of a legal convergence would be European Consumer Protection
Thanks:)
does anyone have an answer for question 21 week 1?
21. law = what the people of the legal system treat as such.
Thanks
Is the answer for questions 3, 4 and 5 of 4/4 what is written on table 7.1 (page 181)?
I guess so. I can't see other examples clearly written when you read the paragraphs
does anyone know what are the 3 benefits of mapping legal systems? And on which page Siems talks about it?
You can check the slides from the lecture. The answer for this question is there.
Thank you so much!!
Has somebody the answers for the quiz questions?
What are the different methods of legal research? Thanks in advance:)
Look at the third lecture slides, everything is explained
I already checked the slides and I could not see the methods, only the steps for a research... so that is why I asked here:) but someone told me we had to find it on internet??
how can I access westlaw?
View 1 more comment
thank you!!!!!