LLB301 Assignment 2 2020 Please take time to read the specific feedback in your paper, both in the mark section, and on the paper itself. There is a lot of guidance provided about parts of the answer that you may have missed or could have done better. If you would like to discuss your assignment, having read this general feedback and your specific feedback, we are happy to talk to you in our consultation times, or if you can't make them, at another time that you arrange with us. However, please note that we cannot conduct reviews of grade at this point. As is Law School policy, reviews of grades for all assessment, including this assignment, is done at the end of the semester. Feedback The vast majority of students put a lot of effort into the presentation of their writing. There were, however, a number of students who did not always follow AGLC4, and had some presentational issues in their writing. As a simple example, a number of students, when footnoting the reference for a case, would leave the footnote number in italics. This automatically happens when writing in Word, but it is very quick to correct. It may seem like a very small issue, but these very small things have a large impact on the overall effect of your work. Another small issue that reflects on attention to detail and professionalism in your work is making sure headings are moved to the next page when they appear at the bottom of a page (without any text underneath them). This is a minor formatting issue that you should check before submission. Making sure every little thing like this is dealt with is what makes your paper look professional and polished and makes it so much easier for your reader. Finally, it goes without saying that you should check for minor typos as well in your footnotes (e.g. Land Titles Act, Barh v Nicolay, etc.). We all may make one or two mistakes, but a thorough proof reading before submission should catch just about everything. If you are citing a provision of a statute, remember to be specific. There is a big difference, for instance, between section 184(1) and s 184(2) of the LTA. Students demonstrated an understanding of how indefeasibility and exceptions to indefeasibility work at a general level. The place where students missed out on marks was in the identification of issues. In question 1, both the fraud and in personam exceptions could have applied (see below), and both should have been considered. A large number of students only considered one of the two. This is a pity because they demonstrated ability to apply the law when applying the exception that they did consider. Significantly, in the tutorials we suggested that you should generally first consider fraud, and then consider in personam. Those that did consider in personam, too often went straight into applying Bahr and/or Nicolay without discussing the peculiar facts of those cases and attempting to