EXAM Review

Here's a link to our Law Class Exam Review.

Looks like this:

CLU3M Canadian Law Exam REVIEW

Welcome to exam review!  Your exam consists of the following:

Part 1

20 Multiple Choice Questions covering concepts from the entire year.

• All of the historical sets of laws that we covered
• Defences to Negligence - There are some defences to negligence cases including voluntary assumption of risk and inevitable accident – explain these
• Precedents in court proceedings
• How are laws created in Canada, in particular what happens in the House of Commons?
• A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example for future cases – similar facts in cases will result in similar decisions.
• What are quasi-criminal, hybrid, indictable, and summary criminal offences and which are most common?
• What are examples of each type of criminal offence?
• What are your rights upon arrest as outlined in the Charter of Rights, s. 10?
• What are some examples of the goals of sentencing, in particular rehabilitation and deterrence? And what are the purposes and differences between Specific Deterrence and General Deterrence
• What are some sentences for the various types of homicides?

e.g. 1st Degree Murder is Life in Prison with no parole for 25 years.

• What are and when can an accused use these defences to a criminal offence.
• Mental Illness
• Alibi
• Insanity
• Automatism
• Entrapment
• Duress
• Consent
• Double Jeopardy

• TORT law includes what other areas of law?  
• Exactly what elements are considered in an action of Intentional Tort and what must be proven to prove a negligence claim?
• To prove a negligence claim what must a plaintiff prove?
• In general terms why are contracts important in our general day to day activities in society?
• What are the rights you have upon being arrested? Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, what rights to privacy do offenders have?
• In general terms why are certain actions/behaviours included in Canada’s Criminal Code?  (The same answer applies to every single item in the Criminal Code).
• What functions does the Supreme Court of Canada perform?

Part 2

FOUR short answer questions regarding cases that are presented to you involving the following parts of law:

1. Extenuating circumstances surrounding a murder trial.  What may judges consider when sentencing convicted murderers?

2. When a person is contracted to commit an illegal act and it goes horribly wrong with consequences and injuries to others far beyond what was originally intended, what legal steps should the police and the judicial system take to bring the perpetrators to justice?  

3. Circumstances surrounding a contract that one party is challenging in court.

4. Circumstances surrounding a negligence claim made by the parents of a young person who has been seriously injured in sports.

Part 3

For the long answer essay question I provide you with a short reading about three different legal scenarios.  You are to comment on the reading using, primarily, supporting evidence from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other areas of Law.  You should review it so that you are familiar with it – I will provide you with a copy of the Charter of Rights for the exam so you do NOT need to memorize it.  Three different scenarios will be presented and you need only to answer one in a full essay.

You list the main topics and page / Chapter #s below here and on the back (and then we can review these as a class tomorrow):

DAY 85 - Contracts

Elements of a Contract
We enter into agreements all the time, but only agreements that have certain legally binding elements are considered contracts.

1. OFFER & ACCEPTANCE
One party makes a "serious" offer, often referred to as a "valid" offer to enter into a contract.  To be valid the offer must be clear and precise.  Then, the offeree (the party accepting the contract offer) must accept the offer.  If a "meeting of the minds" takes place, then the offer has been legally offered and accepted...

The offer must be "serious" - offers made in anger or as a joke are not serious and therefore not valid.

Terms of the offer must be clear.   If goods are being sold then specifics must be detailed, e.g. size, weight, colour, delivery date, terms of the sale (date paid).  And some terms can be assumed.

Invitations to Buy - generally we call these advertisements, store displays, signage, etc.  - these are called, "Invitation to Treat".  In most of these cases, courts have determined that a legal contract has not been formed because these invitations are merely that, invitations to enter a contract by buying.

Communicating an Offer - mail, email, fax, verbal, implied - and many other forms of communication can be used in a contract offer.

Terminating an Offer - until an offer has been accepted there is no contract, so if someone never accepts the offer it is terminated.

Acceptance - words, conduct or in writing, the acceptance must follow some legal rules.  Counteroffers can take effect too - e.g. selling real-estate there is often a series of offers and counteroffers that occur before final agreement.

The acceptance must be communicated to indicate acceptance.  If the acceptance is by mail, the envelope's date stamp indicates acceptance on that date.

2.  CONSIDERATION - the exchange of something of value.  Note - the actual value of the things being exchanged are not relevant.

Present consideration happens when the contract is formed.

Future consideration occurs when a promise within the contract is made for something that happens in the future, e.g. the seller didn't get payment until a future date.


3.  CAPACITY - ability to enter into a contract.

Minors - anyone under age 18 is considered a minor in Canada.

Many apprenticeship and employee contracts are valid with minors as well, e.g. McDonald's.

Impairment by drugs, alcohol, other meds or another physical or mental ailment.


4.  CONSENT - there must be free agreement on both parties to enter the contract.

What is non-consent?
1. misrepresentation of the facts/terms (lying)
2. mistake - someone can honestly make an error in understanding.
3. undue influence
4. duress

5.  LAWFUL PURPOSE - any contract that is a crime in Canada is illegal and void.

DAY 81 - Last Day of Tort Law

THORNTON V. PRINCE GEORGE

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 57

Thornton et al. v. Prince George School District No. 57

[1978] 2 S.C.R. 267

Supreme Court of Canada

In 1971, Gary Thornton was participating in a physical education class at Prince George High School in British Columbia.  He was 15 years old and about 185 cm tall.  A box horse had been placed at the lower end of a springboard, so that a spring would elevate the gymnast high enough to do a somersault.  The teacher, David Edamura, had approved this arrangement.  The boys, however, had never before used the equipment this way.  After organizing the class, Edamura went to one end of the gym to complete report cards.  As a result, he was not able to observe the class activity directly.

          After one student had landed on the floor and suffered a broken wrist while attempting a double somersault, foam rubber mats were added around the springboard.  When Thornton’s turn came, he overshot the thick landing mats, landed on his head on the thin foam mats, and was taken immediately to hospital.  Thornton had a fracture of the spinal cord that left him a quadriplegic; he would require constant care for the rest of his life.  His life expectancy was 54 years.  Although physically handicapped, his mental faculties were unimpaired.

          Thornton’s parents brought an action for negligence on his behalf against the school board and the teacher.  In January 1975, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $1.5 million.  On appeal by the school board, the Court of Appeal confirmed the negligence of the school board and the teacher but reduced the award to $600 000.  Thornton appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada where, in January 1978, the Court made a final award of $810 000.

          The original trial judgments awarded the plaintiffs $200 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.  The Supreme Court of Canada reduced this amount to $100 000.

Please Answer

1.           Does this case answer in the affirmative (“YES”) to each of the five elements of Negligence?  Explain each one.

2.           Why did Thornton’s parents bring this action to the court on their son’s behalf?

3.           Why was the action brought against the Prince George School Board as well as the teacher?

4.           Did the teacher do what was expected or required of him as a physical education teacher?  Why or why not?

5.            Do you think the Supreme Court’s award of $100 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life was a fair and reasonable settlement?

 

Also, to complete your study of Tort Law, please ensure that you are familiar with each of the terms under Chapter Highlights on page 430 of the text.

Also, please answer, in your notes, pp 430 – 431, Questions:

·         1-7

·         11

·         12 (but not the last part, “Prepare a report . . . “)