My University days is a time I cherish. The first time around I was at University, I mean. Of course I do also value the time I spent at University the second time, but it is not as dear to me as the first experience. The impressionability of youth probably had a lot to do with it. The novelty of it all, and the eagerness with which I received it all, was something that has not since and is unlikely to ever be repeated. There is an obvious difference between that and returning to University as a mature student seeing the world through very different eyes.
Anyway, I have always said that I learnt a lot in that time. But what is it exactly I learnt?
First a sidestep. I started reading The Know-It-All by A.J. Jacobs last night. A.J., editor for Esquire at the time, decided to set about to amass knowledge. Well, I think the cultivation of intelligence through knowledge was the basic plan. The execution of the plan was the reading of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. All of it. How ever many volumes it was back then and some 33,000 pages. I have no intention of going into the book itself here. I mention it only because my musings about what I learnt in University was brought about by something he wrote in his introduction. Of the top of his head, he writes, he could only remember three things about his classes in college: all of them being memories of random incidences rather than facts he learnt in class. Of course, I rather think that he probably remembers more than that, and for whatever reason, perhaps for artistic or comic effect, chose only to mention the selected few.
That got me to thinking. I remember a lot from my days at University. I remember the time I spent with my friends, the time I spent on my own. My delight over the law library - let’s just get it out there now: yes, I am a bit of a nerd. Or rather, there is a side of me that is very nerdy indeed. And just to accentuate this fact, when I happened to mention A.J. Jacobs' quest to someone recently, "I cannot imagine anything more boring" was the immediate response I got. I secretly thought to myself though, that I did not think it was boring at all. Ok, I concede the Encyclopaedia Britannica might be a bit over the top. All the volumes collectively undoubtedly weigh more than me! I draw the line at that. If there was like a concise version, say, in two volumes or something, let's just say I would not mind getting that in my Christmas stocking...
- Now where was I? Oh yes, I was remembering- leaving the law faculty at 5pm and it being dark outside, sitting in my Land Law lecture and thinking to myself that I did not understand a single word the lecturer was saying – no wonder I failed Land Law the first time around! Of course I remember failing Land Law as well and doing much, much better (thank God!) on the resit. I remember roller-blading up and down my tiny room memorising my notes for the exams, working on my mosaic jigsaw puzzle on the floor while one of my friends was waxing another of my friend’s legs to a hullabaloo of shrieks and screams, laughter and giggles; staying up all night for no apparent reason and waiting for the local store to open to get a loaf of bread and a pint of milk before going to bed at 6am; hiding my already sizable collection of books under the drawers in my room at halls so I did not have to bother moving them around over the summer and explaining to the baffled new student at the start of the next term that I needed to enter her room to get my books. I remember the many cups of coffee (to the disdain of my English friends, I did not embrace the tea drinking culture until later on in life) and cake, wine and ambiance evenings, and a steady supply of Malibu in the cupboard and Haagen Daaz in the freezer. Those were good times.
Anyway, I have always said that I learnt a lot in that time. But what is it exactly I learnt?
First a sidestep. I started reading The Know-It-All by A.J. Jacobs last night. A.J., editor for Esquire at the time, decided to set about to amass knowledge. Well, I think the cultivation of intelligence through knowledge was the basic plan. The execution of the plan was the reading of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. All of it. How ever many volumes it was back then and some 33,000 pages. I have no intention of going into the book itself here. I mention it only because my musings about what I learnt in University was brought about by something he wrote in his introduction. Of the top of his head, he writes, he could only remember three things about his classes in college: all of them being memories of random incidences rather than facts he learnt in class. Of course, I rather think that he probably remembers more than that, and for whatever reason, perhaps for artistic or comic effect, chose only to mention the selected few.
That got me to thinking. I remember a lot from my days at University. I remember the time I spent with my friends, the time I spent on my own. My delight over the law library - let’s just get it out there now: yes, I am a bit of a nerd. Or rather, there is a side of me that is very nerdy indeed. And just to accentuate this fact, when I happened to mention A.J. Jacobs' quest to someone recently, "I cannot imagine anything more boring" was the immediate response I got. I secretly thought to myself though, that I did not think it was boring at all. Ok, I concede the Encyclopaedia Britannica might be a bit over the top. All the volumes collectively undoubtedly weigh more than me! I draw the line at that. If there was like a concise version, say, in two volumes or something, let's just say I would not mind getting that in my Christmas stocking...
- Now where was I? Oh yes, I was remembering- leaving the law faculty at 5pm and it being dark outside, sitting in my Land Law lecture and thinking to myself that I did not understand a single word the lecturer was saying – no wonder I failed Land Law the first time around! Of course I remember failing Land Law as well and doing much, much better (thank God!) on the resit. I remember roller-blading up and down my tiny room memorising my notes for the exams, working on my mosaic jigsaw puzzle on the floor while one of my friends was waxing another of my friend’s legs to a hullabaloo of shrieks and screams, laughter and giggles; staying up all night for no apparent reason and waiting for the local store to open to get a loaf of bread and a pint of milk before going to bed at 6am; hiding my already sizable collection of books under the drawers in my room at halls so I did not have to bother moving them around over the summer and explaining to the baffled new student at the start of the next term that I needed to enter her room to get my books. I remember the many cups of coffee (to the disdain of my English friends, I did not embrace the tea drinking culture until later on in life) and cake, wine and ambiance evenings, and a steady supply of Malibu in the cupboard and Haagen Daaz in the freezer. Those were good times.
But what do I remember from the actual classes themselves? By that I mean, how much of what I learnt then can I still recall today? Inspired by Mr. Jacobs’ measly list of three, I set about the task of listing out what I could remember. Unlike his list, I am trying to list out facts that I can recall from the contents of my lectures. This is what I have come up with – with some effort, mind you, not just off the top of my head. It wasn't easy, especially trying to separate out the things I recall today because I have been using it or working with it or re-learnt it in my years of practice, and list out only the facts which I am certain I remember from my undergraduate days. Let's hope I have actually got them right!
1. I would have to start with Carlill v the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. This is the first case I remember learning in Contract Law, actually probably the first case I learnt, ever. It is also probably the first case any Contract Law student (in common law jurisdictions, at least) learns, establishing the good acceptance of an offer made to the world at large upon the fulfilment of terms of offer, and specifically in the case that Mrs. Carlill had a valid contract with the company based on their advertisement about the flu preventing carbolic smoke ball.
2. Then there was some case involving Boots Cash Chemist, establishing that the price label on a product or on the shelf in a shop does not amount to an offer to sell the the product at that price, rather an invitation to treat. So a customer taking the product to the cashier does not amount to an acceptance, rather an offer. And that is why, we cannot compel Boots, for example to sell us ... oh, I don't know, a hair-dryer for £1.59, instead of £15.99 just because they got the decimal at the wrong place in the price label.
3. While we are at it, the essential elements of a contract are an offer and acceptance, with good consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
4. Consideration need not be adequate, but must be sufficient. What's the difference, you might ask? Yes, well, consideration for less that fair value is sufficient, but not adequate. So if you stupidly agree to sell someone your house for £1, that £1 is good consideration.
5. Also, past consideration is not good consideration.
6. I learnt about privity of contract, limiting the enforceability of a benefit arising from a contract to parties to the contract.
7. I learnt about the bona fide third party purchaser of good faith, whom the law protects above all others. Or at least, off the top of my head, I cannot remember the exceptions.
8. For there to be negligence, a duty of care must exists, there must be a breach of that duty causing injury to another.
10. Donoghue v Stevenson a.k.a. the snail in the ginger beer case. Poor woman drank a bottle/can of ginger beer to discover the remains of a snail at the bottom, and thus was established the reasonable foreseeability test.
11. The reasonable man is the man on the Clapham omnibus. That is to say, the average man with average skill, knowledge exercising care, etc.
12. There are not many Acts I actually remember, the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 is about the only one that comes to mind now. Oh, and the Magna Carta 1215, much use though that is to me...
13. Theft is the dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. So, taking someone else's car for a joyride is strictly speaking not theft - but I cannot remember how they got around that one or what they do about it now.
14. For an act to amount to a crime, both the act itself (actus rea) and the mental element (mens rea) must be concurrent. That is say, and said very loosely indeed, that one must intend or at least know what one is doing when one commits a crime. This had something to do with a case where the accused hit someone intending to kill him. It did not actually kill him at the time but the accused did not know that. So the mens rea was there but not the actus rea. He later threw what he thought was a dead body off a cliff or something, which actually did kill the poor bugger, but at that time though the actus rea occurred the mens rea was not present. I cannot remember what happened in the case though.
15. Assault and battery often go together but are actually two separate crimes. Assault entails causing someone to fear being harmed, while battery involves actually striking the "victim".
3. While we are at it, the essential elements of a contract are an offer and acceptance, with good consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
4. Consideration need not be adequate, but must be sufficient. What's the difference, you might ask? Yes, well, consideration for less that fair value is sufficient, but not adequate. So if you stupidly agree to sell someone your house for £1, that £1 is good consideration.
5. Also, past consideration is not good consideration.
7. I learnt about the bona fide third party purchaser of good faith, whom the law protects above all others. Or at least, off the top of my head, I cannot remember the exceptions.
8. For there to be negligence, a duty of care must exists, there must be a breach of that duty causing injury to another.
9. A duty of care is implied where one of the parties are in a fidicuary relationship, even if not in a contractual relationship. There was some case about some woman going to a bank or some financial advisor of some description.
11. The reasonable man is the man on the Clapham omnibus. That is to say, the average man with average skill, knowledge exercising care, etc.
12. There are not many Acts I actually remember, the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 is about the only one that comes to mind now. Oh, and the Magna Carta 1215, much use though that is to me...
13. Theft is the dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. So, taking someone else's car for a joyride is strictly speaking not theft - but I cannot remember how they got around that one or what they do about it now.
14. For an act to amount to a crime, both the act itself (actus rea) and the mental element (mens rea) must be concurrent. That is say, and said very loosely indeed, that one must intend or at least know what one is doing when one commits a crime. This had something to do with a case where the accused hit someone intending to kill him. It did not actually kill him at the time but the accused did not know that. So the mens rea was there but not the actus rea. He later threw what he thought was a dead body off a cliff or something, which actually did kill the poor bugger, but at that time though the actus rea occurred the mens rea was not present. I cannot remember what happened in the case though.
15. Assault and battery often go together but are actually two separate crimes. Assault entails causing someone to fear being harmed, while battery involves actually striking the "victim".
Right, that'll do. I did more than three, and more than ten even, so I'm happy. I'm also sleepy.
Wine to anaethetise leg waxing.... happy days!
ReplyDelete