LLB301 Final Exam Feedback Summer 2017-2018 General Comments: Unfortunately, the final exam was not done particularly well. This is in light of the fact that the papers were marked quite generously. In many cases there was a correlation between those students who performed well on the mid-semester assignment and those that performed well in the exam. This group of students (about 25% of the cohort) presumably put in more effort during the summer semester and were able to understand and identify the relevant issues most clearly. In all honesty, real property law is not 'rocket science', but it does take a lot of time and effort to understand the key concepts which are new to many students in third year. That said, sometimes students did well on the exam and poorly in the assignment, and, of course, visa versa. The main trouble spots for 50-60% of students in this exam seemed to be: · Inability to correctly identify the main legal issues in a scenario (the wrong issue leads to the wrong law leads to the wrong conclusion); · Poor time management (some questions left unanswered, or large amount of text on things which were largely irrelevant); · Poor/illegible handwriting and/or no clear structure to answers (students should practice handwriting/structuring their answers in the lead up to exam). NB: all sorts of arrows and dot points in a booklet does not particularly make it easy for the examiner to understand what you are saying !; · Lack of citations of law for conclusions of law (this was particularly problematic in about a quarter of the papers). For example, it is not appropriate to write like this: "One co-owner has a right to bring another co-owner onto the property. Also, a co-owner can create a lease or invite strangers onto the premises. In this case we have Tony inviting another onto the premises. This should be allowed (Thrift v Thrift)." It is better to write it like this: "The issue in this case is whether Tony can invite another onto the property. Under the common law, the general rule is that one co-owner has a right to bring another co-owner onto the property (Thrift v Thrift). There is also authority for the proposition that a co-owner can create a lease or varve out a lesser estate for the interest of another (Oates v Oates). In this case, we have Tony inviting another onto the premises but not through a lease. Following the decision in Thrift v Thrift his actions should be permitted. However, there are circumstances which might move this beyond a 'mere invitation'. The case of Shean v Shean held that .... Accordingly, it is likely Tony's situation is similar to ... " In exam situations, where time is of the essence, students should follow this model very carefully: 1. Issue 2. Relevant Law 3. Application to facts 4. Conclusion You don't need to write these headings in the exam, but you should be thinking of them in relation to