I am not a lawyer but may I just throw in that contrary to the reputation you lot have of being horrific, competitive, back-biting scum, you are all being helpful and supportive of one another? You may end up changing the common public perception of your profession if you keep this up.
The trick for all exams (and other high-stress situations like competitions or performances) is to maintain a balance between preparation and relaxation. Good on you, Gleena - best of luck with the rest of them!
You are fine Gleena having come through the fire.
IMHO for what its worth, contract law is one of the most important and useful branches of the law. Even accountants (try to) learn it. :smack: Contracts are everywhere - from paying the bus driver to buying online.
Good luck with your studies. Hedley Byrne eh…takes me back…pure economic loss…didn’t the Wagon Mound 1 and 2 come in there somewhere?..
LLB 1979 Otago
I thought the Wagon Mounds were about foreseeability and contributory neg?
Good times, good times…
They better be. 
Hedley Byrne is a case in both contract and tort. In contract it’s for showing that a clause can arise two causes of action - in the case of the question, negligence in tort and breach in contract.
The Wagon Mound (No 1 and No 2) isn’t about contrib, it’s about remoteness in tort. (Er…that’s how we use it here, anyway.) It does have some contrib elements, but it’s used as a common law negligence test for remoteness, specifically reasonable foreseeability. (And on my exam I will contrast it with the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002, which is the law on negligence in NSW in most, but not all circumstances. :D)
At least it better be, because Torts is in the morning and if it’s not I’ll cry.
Hedley-Byrne and the Wagon Mounds? I remember studying those. Not sure if they were good times… 
Donaghue. Salmon v Salmon. Hedly v Baxendale.
I take it most of the common law world outside the US studies many of the same cases?
So, did Hedley Byrne v Heller or Wagon Mound (1 or 2) turn up on the paper?
And you can relax now.
We adult sharks are only nice to baby sharks so that they grow up to be enthusiastic adolescent sharks that we can exploit ruthlessly.
Yes - Wagon Mound, not HBvH. It was Indirect tort (battery and assualt) negligence (Civil Liability Act, so Wagon Mound to compare common law), negligence (CLA again, with the twist of two parties being negligent, the employer and the place she was working which was not the same as the employer, so two parties had duty of care), and negligence (common law, MVA - with the twist of resucers- Chapman v Hearse.)
And I am glad that is over!
AK84 I have not run across Salmon v Salmon yet but I probably will. The rest yes. All the big ones, Donohue v Stevenson, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, Hadley v Baxendale, etc.
Princhester HAH! I knew there was a reason.
Now I am going to take a few hours to relax, then go out with my study group and get drunk. Very, very drunk.
Cheers all, and thanks for the sympathy, advice and good wishes. I’ll let you know in 2 months if I passed.
Many of them, I’d say. I certainly remember Donaghue well enough, and any number of decisions written by Lord Denning (for example, Beswick v. Beswick). And we study cases from the US as well, where appropriate–I remember studying US cases in contracts, torts, and intellectual property. But of course, where other countries’ decisions don’t “translate” well, such as in constitutional law, criminal law, and administrative law, we stick to homemade decisions.
Yep, we studied Carbolic Smoke Ball too. In fact, our law school’s annual formal was called “the Carbolic Smoke Ball.”
Good grief, even I remember Donohue v Stevenson from my Form 5 Legal Studies class last century. If only that little snail knew how famous he’d become…
Ah…can’t recall a Salmon case and wonder if AK84 meant:
“Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the Lords’ unanimous ruling was to firmly uphold the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company’s shareholders to pay up outstanding debts.”
There may be a trusts or equity case with a similar name too, but it has been a while…