Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Transcript

Problem questions ask you to apply your knowledge

of the law to a given factual scenario. As the name

suggests, they get you to question problems...

Problem questions (or PQs to the cool kids) are frequently based on areas where there are uncertainties about the law

What this means, then, is that there are rarely "right"

answers to PQs. Instead, there are arguments which

suggest one view and other arguments which suggest

an alternate view. Your job is to highlight what those

arguments are.

This prezi has some tips for you on

how to structure your thinking and

answers for PQS

The two key things to remember are:

(i) apply the correct law (legislation and cases) to the relevant facts of the PQ

(ii) use the law to ARGUE your case

In any PQ, you start with the facts.

Let's look at an example:

Bill is one of three directors in Fun Law Ltd,

a company set up to promote the fun in law.

Jane is one of four shareholders in Fun Law Ltd.

When you get the facts of a PQ, read them. Then re-read then.

Then pick up a pen.

First thing, identify the relevant parties. Remember that names

may indicate parties with rights or liabilities that may need to be discussed. Let's go back to our example. Who are the parties here?

Bill is one of three directors in Fun Law Ltd,

a company set up to promote the fun in law.

Jane is one of four shareholders in Fun Law Ltd.

Bill and Jane are obviously parties.

Anyone else?

What about the other directors?

What about the other shareholders?

What about Fun Law Ltd itself?

The point here is simple: not every party will be named in a PQ.

Some may simply be referred to by title (e.g. "another shareholder")

or otherwise mentioned ("Cerys is mother to six children, including

Ewan and Elen...")

Ok, so you've read the PQ (at least twice) and you've identified

the relevant parties. What next?

Now look for relationships between those parties. Some of these

will be legally relevant and relevant for your PQ; others won't. But it's a good thinking exercise to identify all of them.

Let's take another example to look at relationships in PQs

Bill is driving his car in wet weather. Jane, a 10 year old child with learning

difficulties steps out in front of the car. Bill tries to brake, but can't stop

the car in time. Jane is seriously injured.

What parties and relationships can you see here?

Issue Spotting

By this stage, you have identified the relevant parties and worked out the relationships between them. What next?

Issue Spotting: Not every relationship that you have identified will be legally relevant. Some will. Some won't.

To issue spot means to make a decision about the relevance of the relationships you have identified.

A good chunk of what you are asking yourself inside your head is: "Can X bring a claim against Y?" And, if yes,

is that claim the sort of the claim that the PQ is asking you to discuss. And, linked to this, if there is a claim, what defences might be open to the defendant? But your PQ might not be wholly about claims. Your PQ might be getting you to advise a party on how the law would apply to them. In that case, that's the issue.

Some PQs will only have one issue that requires spotting. Can A claim against B? Advise A on B. Others will have multiple issues: Can A claim against B, C and D? Can X claim against Y? Can Y claim against Z? Advise A on B, C and D... etc

By identifying parties and by identifying relationships from the facts, you make the likelihood of spotting all the

relevant issues that much greater.

Failure to spot an issue on which you are required to advise will likely mean losing marks. Given

this, spend a good amount of time being sure of the facts and being sure that you have identified

the relevant parties, the relationships between them and what issues are at play.

On the facts, don't make stuff up.

Don't invent facts you are not told. One of

the key skills for a PQ is being able to identify

missing data: facts which you are not told, but

which would be relevant to the determinaton of

the legal issues/claims.

Similarly, don't question the facts. If you are told, for example,

that "The doctor was negligent during surgery...", then don't say

"We don't know if the doctor was negligent. To be negligent..." You

will be told facts for a reason. Don't waste time questioning them.

Finally, on this issue, don't consider alternatives unless you

have been specifically told to do so. So, if you are told "The doctor

was negligent..." don't inlcude, as part of your answer "Had the doctor

not been negligent..." unless the question asks of you "Consider the

situation in which the doctor had not been negligent"

Once you've identified the parties and the various relationships, you

will need to decide on the relevant applicable laws.

Some PQs require you to look at one discrete body of law. Others

require consideration of multiple bodies of law.

Here, the skill you need to learn is to be able to identify what is

required of you by way of answer to the PQ.

Before you put pen to paper, be clear on what you have to do: on which areas

of law you are being asked to discuss.

The following structure is what I like to see by way of translating of the IRAC method into a written answer. But, as I said before. this is just my PERSONAL PREFERENCE on structure.

Let's talk about authority

All too frequently, students made assertions without back up.

Don't do this.

Ever.

Every time you make an assertion, have back up.

Have authority which supports and/or is the basis

for the assertion you are making.

To sum up, for every assertion that you give, try and have some authority for it.

This will make your answer fuller. And more accurate. And thereby you will get better

marks

Let's talk about depth of knowledge of the law

Case name, brief facts, legal principles. This is the minimum.

It may also be helpful to try to remember the date of the case, the court in which the case was heard and what individual judges said (if there is more than one judgment)

With statute, what you need to know may depend on whether or

not you are allowed to use a statute book in the exam. Even

where you are permitted to take in a statute book, do you really

want to spend all of your time leafing through its pages? Having key

bits of the key statutory provisions in your head is a probably a good

idea in any event.

Simply knowing what law is relevant to a given fact pattern is not enough for a PQ.

You have to be able to APPLY that law to the facts

What this means is that you have to take the law and see what the result would be

if a judge were asked to apply that law to the particular problem. What is there in

the particular problem that fits with/looks like previous case law, for example? That is,

what are the similarities? At the same time, what looks different? How might you

distinguish previous case law from the fact pattern in front you? If a real world lawyer

was giving advice to a party idenitifed in the PQ, what would they say about how the

law applied to them?

"Well, yes, the law is settled in Area X. And so it would apply to you

thus... But, you know, there was this truly fascintaing piece in the MLR

last month where Professor Veryclever argued for a fundamental reform

of the law...."

My personal view is that if you are asked to

advise a theoretical client, you advise them on

the law and how it applies to them. You don't

engage them in debate about academics. And you

don't raise questions of policy or social context,

fascinating though these may be.

If there's one thing that drives me crazy,

it's when students don't answer the question set.

If you are told to "Advise Liz", then advise Liz. Imagine

she's a real life client sat at your desk. If you just told

her the law, and didn't advise her on how the law applied to her, that wouldn't massively help her.

One of the saddest things (when marking exams)

is when you come to a student who is clearly capable

and who clearly understands the PQ. And who

identifies the X issues in the PQ. But then

runs out of time and only discusses X-1/X-2

of those issues.

To say "I ran out of time" is a poor excuse.

You know in advance how long you have to answer

the PQ (an hour, 45 minutes etc). And once you have

identified the issues, you can give a rough estimate of how

long to spend on each.

Say you have 45 minutes to answer a PQ. And you identify 3 claims that

need to discussed and each is equally complex. Why, then, would you spend

30 minutes doing Issue 1 and leaving such little time for Issues 2 and 3?

My toppest top tip to you is to have a watch in front of you or a clock

nearby and to be ruthless about your allocation of time to each individual

issue.

Writing "Sorry I ran out of time! :0( " on your exam

script is not going to get you very far....

Now, go forth and answer your PQs

Good luck!

Let's talk about structure

You may have heard in the past about the IRAC or CLEO methods for answering PQs. Both are essentially the same

and are designed to give you a way of thinking about and structuring your approach.

The IRAC method stands for: Issue - Rule - Application - Conclusion.

With IRAQ, identify the relevant issue, decide on the law which is relevant to that issue,

apply the law to the particular facts and then conclude (which will commonly require the giving of advice to a particular party)

Introduction

Introductions to PQs are not the same as introductions

to essays. Don't start off by saying "This PQ raises many varied

and complex issues in relation to the law of [X]" (which would be poor even for

an essay question). Instead, simply signal to the reader that you have identified

the relevant issues. For example, "There are three possible claims here. A against

B under the law of X in relation to Y; C against D under the law of [etc etc]..."

Parties?

The Body of the Answer

As for the body of your answer to the PQ, you can do this in one of two main ways. You can either

state all of the laws relevant to the issues you have identified and then apply those laws to the

relevant facts. Or you can integrate the two: that is, state and apply the law at the same time.

You will need to check which of these your tutor/lecturer prefers.

Whatever you do, be methodical. Don't mix up different issues or different bits of law. And don't

jump between different claimants or different claims. Whichever approach you take, make it such that the reader has a clear understanding of what you are discussing and to what that discussion refers. An easy way of making your answer clear is to use headings: "A's claim against B" "Case Law on Contaminatled Land" etc

Parties?

Bill

Jane

Car Manufacturer?

Jane's parents?

Relationships?

Sometimes it will be obvious, "Advise Sarah in relation to a possible nuisance

claim against Anna." On other occasions, it will be more vague: "Discuss" or

"Advise the parties".

Bill

Bill

Jane

Car Manufacturer

Jane

Jane's Parents

This prezi looks at how to go about

answering problem questions.

These are my views. Mine. Your own tutor

or lecturer may have their own views on

how to approach problem questions. What

you should do is use this prezi to guide you

and then check if your tutor/lecturer differs

in what they expect to see by way of problem

question answer

Manufactuers owe a duty of care

to end users

Articles of association can be

amended by special resolution

The Only Way is Essex is the

best thing on tv

So, instead of simply asserting that "Articles of

association can be amended by special resolution"

give the authority: hence, either "Section 21 of the Companies Act 2006 details that articles of association..." or "Articles of association can be amended by special resolution (s21, CA'06)"

Answering Problem

Questions: Law

Applying the Law

Academics, policy etc

If a client walked into my office and paid me

money to advise them in relation to a particular legal

point, can you image their reaction if I started

talking about academic views on

the matter?

Your teachers will normally write problem questions

that cover uncertainties in the law. They do this

as they want you to highlight those uncertainties

and to detail the facts and factors which a judge

would consider relevant to the determination of the

matter at hand. This is not easy. And it requires you to

step away from the PQ and really think about the body

of law in your head and the facts in front of you. Take your

time. The students who do well in application of the law are

normally the students who do best in PQs. And the more

sophisticated your application and arguments, the more

successful you will be with your PQs.

What is required or expected of you during your module/course is different to (a) what you will be capable of remembering for an exam and

(b) what you are physically capable of writing in

the time allotted for that exam

When it comes to applying the law, you may find

that some of your arguments are stronger than

others. Or that certain causes of action or certain

grounds of claim are stronger than others.

There's nothing wrong in putting forward a

weak argument, as long as it is arguable. But

do tell the reader about relative strengths. For

example, “Alpha Ltd might argue X. On the basis

of previous case law (see Y and Z), this may be

a somewhat weak argument, but it remains,

nevertheless, arguable…”

For an EXAM

With case law, you need to know case name, brief case

facts and the key principles of law decided/discussed.

Please don't repeat case facts at great length. You can rest

assured I have read them and know what they say. Case

facts are, however, relevant where you want to compare or

contrast a case to the fact pattern in the PQ. Just don't

spend 1/2 a page writng out the facts of case X or Y.

As I say, this is my PERSONAL VIEW.

And I know other tutors/lecturers differ. Some will want you

to reference, for example, Law Commission papers where

the relevant area of law is under reform or being debated.

My advice is thus to specifically ask your teacher whether

they would expect to see academics/policy/social context/reform

discussed in your PQs. Better to be safe than sorry...

Concluding

Timing

Dr Steven Vaughan, UCL Faculty of Laws

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi