someone please K.I.L.L me.
i am going to break down any moment as i type this. ok, sorry to those who don't understand what i am typing. will try my best to break it down for you.
today i had my equity closed book exam. it's worth 50%. for the last 3 days, i have been cramming everything into my head. we were being tested on 4 doctrines
1. illegitimate pressure (IP)
2. undue influence (UI)
3. unconscionable dealing (UD)
4. the principle of yerkey v jones
i know you guys are like.. "what the eff if that". ok let me try to summarise this as layman as possible. IP is when X threatens B into signing a contract. UI is when X, under the influence of Y signs a contract which will benefit Z, the third party. UD arises when X has a special disadvantage (like retardation, poverty, illiteracy, age.. so on) and Y knows that disadvantaga and exploits it. the principle of Y v J is to protect wives who, under the influence of their husbands, sign agreements with 3rd parties.
our exam today was to read a case and critisize it. in the case, the judge found in favour of the defendant's counter-claim, that she was forced to sign the contract with the plaintiffs on the basis of undue influence and unconsionable dealing. the problem was, the judge was wrong. the crux of the case lay with illegitimate pressure. he misquoted the defintion of undue influence, citing the OLD definition of illegitimate pressure. i corrected him with the NEW definition of illegitimate pressure, BUT instead of saying IP, i said UI. and in my whole subsequent analysis, i critiqued that it was UI and UD - but that his approach was wrong, thats all.
the problem is, i had all this information in my head, i memorised every single shitting case in my reading list. but not once did i mention IP or Y v J. and this is what the whole case analysis centred around. the moment kiasu said "crescendo" [which is the precedent case for IP] - i went "SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTT".
there is no way i cld have redeemed myself in that analysis, because the whole thing was on the judge identifying the wrong doctrine and yet i was just adding on to his wrong identifications. what makes it so much worse is that, i KNEW everything there is to IP, the definitions and all. yet i could correct him on using the old definition when the new one is the presently upheld one. but i failed to correct myself in writing that it was for IP and not UI! what the hell was going through my head then i don't know. it is so clearly a case of IP but yet i still added on to UI and UD????? there is no way i can pass this exam. i want to commit suicide. not after i eat a full meal first.
did i mention this paper is worth 50%?
i am going to break down any moment as i type this. ok, sorry to those who don't understand what i am typing. will try my best to break it down for you.
today i had my equity closed book exam. it's worth 50%. for the last 3 days, i have been cramming everything into my head. we were being tested on 4 doctrines
1. illegitimate pressure (IP)
2. undue influence (UI)
3. unconscionable dealing (UD)
4. the principle of yerkey v jones
i know you guys are like.. "what the eff if that". ok let me try to summarise this as layman as possible. IP is when X threatens B into signing a contract. UI is when X, under the influence of Y signs a contract which will benefit Z, the third party. UD arises when X has a special disadvantage (like retardation, poverty, illiteracy, age.. so on) and Y knows that disadvantaga and exploits it. the principle of Y v J is to protect wives who, under the influence of their husbands, sign agreements with 3rd parties.
our exam today was to read a case and critisize it. in the case, the judge found in favour of the defendant's counter-claim, that she was forced to sign the contract with the plaintiffs on the basis of undue influence and unconsionable dealing. the problem was, the judge was wrong. the crux of the case lay with illegitimate pressure. he misquoted the defintion of undue influence, citing the OLD definition of illegitimate pressure. i corrected him with the NEW definition of illegitimate pressure, BUT instead of saying IP, i said UI. and in my whole subsequent analysis, i critiqued that it was UI and UD - but that his approach was wrong, thats all.
the problem is, i had all this information in my head, i memorised every single shitting case in my reading list. but not once did i mention IP or Y v J. and this is what the whole case analysis centred around. the moment kiasu said "crescendo" [which is the precedent case for IP] - i went "SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTT".
there is no way i cld have redeemed myself in that analysis, because the whole thing was on the judge identifying the wrong doctrine and yet i was just adding on to his wrong identifications. what makes it so much worse is that, i KNEW everything there is to IP, the definitions and all. yet i could correct him on using the old definition when the new one is the presently upheld one. but i failed to correct myself in writing that it was for IP and not UI! what the hell was going through my head then i don't know. it is so clearly a case of IP but yet i still added on to UI and UD????? there is no way i can pass this exam. i want to commit suicide. not after i eat a full meal first.
did i mention this paper is worth 50%?
posted by princess rach at
11:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home