![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojWoo-hoo!! I'm DONE CONTRACTS!!!
I have no idea how I did. Wrote frantically and disorganizedly for three hours, then walked out. I wish I could've had lunch with Val and Virve - well, with Val, anyway - but they're both compulsive post-exam worriers. "What did you say for question 3a? Did you say Plummer could use estoppel? Because he couldn't get the statements admitted under the Parol Evidence Rule..."
I will never understand this need. One of the real perks to finishing a final exam is never having to worry about the nitpicky parts of the subject again. Why deprive yourself of that one glory?
The only thing I care about after an exam is how well I did. I definitely picked up a whole lot of legal issues from the facts, and explicitly tied them to the facts. The prof had said that my biggest problem on the Christmas exam was that I obviously knew the law, but I didn't tie it in. "Don't just tell me he can get punitive but not aggravated damages; tell me he can't get aggravated because he has no medical evidence of distress."
So on this one, I tied in every single legal point to a fact. "There was mistake as to terms because Jen thought window treatments meant the curtains, and Isabelle thought they meant the curtains and window seat coverings." "The penalty clause was disproportionate in that the contract was worth $1M and the penalty clause was $2.5M." I may have gone a liiittle overboard on this, actually.
The only thing I didn't much like was that I was utterly disorganized. It's hard to squish complex fact situations into a clear, linear analysis in Contracts. At least, it is for me. In other classes I'm able to clearly go through steps 1 through 10 or whatever. In Contracts? Step 1, and then step 3 because step 2 isn't relevant to this situation and I don't have time but then step 1 again because based on the result of step 3 something else becomes important in 1 and then 4 but no wait, 2 is suddenly relevant and... where was I?
Whatever. Hopefully that won't cost me too many marks. And, most importantly: for good or bad, it's done. Done, done, done.
Oh, and small funny: two of our clients were a young couple named Ben and Jen Afflo. Not as funny as last year's exam, which featured business problems between the Ottawa Parliamentarians and the Toronto Maple Buds, over the Sorel Centre and Sky Dominion stadiums.
You probably have to be an Ontarian to get that ;)
And now I'm off to eat my veggie lasagna, and then back to the grind. My Legislation paper is due on Monday and all of a sudden I feel like writing some subtle snark about corporate liability ;)
I have no idea how I did. Wrote frantically and disorganizedly for three hours, then walked out. I wish I could've had lunch with Val and Virve - well, with Val, anyway - but they're both compulsive post-exam worriers. "What did you say for question 3a? Did you say Plummer could use estoppel? Because he couldn't get the statements admitted under the Parol Evidence Rule..."
I will never understand this need. One of the real perks to finishing a final exam is never having to worry about the nitpicky parts of the subject again. Why deprive yourself of that one glory?
The only thing I care about after an exam is how well I did. I definitely picked up a whole lot of legal issues from the facts, and explicitly tied them to the facts. The prof had said that my biggest problem on the Christmas exam was that I obviously knew the law, but I didn't tie it in. "Don't just tell me he can get punitive but not aggravated damages; tell me he can't get aggravated because he has no medical evidence of distress."
So on this one, I tied in every single legal point to a fact. "There was mistake as to terms because Jen thought window treatments meant the curtains, and Isabelle thought they meant the curtains and window seat coverings." "The penalty clause was disproportionate in that the contract was worth $1M and the penalty clause was $2.5M." I may have gone a liiittle overboard on this, actually.
The only thing I didn't much like was that I was utterly disorganized. It's hard to squish complex fact situations into a clear, linear analysis in Contracts. At least, it is for me. In other classes I'm able to clearly go through steps 1 through 10 or whatever. In Contracts? Step 1, and then step 3 because step 2 isn't relevant to this situation and I don't have time but then step 1 again because based on the result of step 3 something else becomes important in 1 and then 4 but no wait, 2 is suddenly relevant and... where was I?
Whatever. Hopefully that won't cost me too many marks. And, most importantly: for good or bad, it's done. Done, done, done.
Oh, and small funny: two of our clients were a young couple named Ben and Jen Afflo. Not as funny as last year's exam, which featured business problems between the Ottawa Parliamentarians and the Toronto Maple Buds, over the Sorel Centre and Sky Dominion stadiums.
You probably have to be an Ontarian to get that ;)
And now I'm off to eat my veggie lasagna, and then back to the grind. My Legislation paper is due on Monday and all of a sudden I feel like writing some subtle snark about corporate liability ;)
