I found great success in making what I call hybrid outlines: I buy or somehow gain access to a commercial outline + I create my own outline using the professor's syllabus + notes from class + case rules + vocabulary and information from the case book that the professor referenced. Then I piece it all together according to the professor's syllabus, remove the redundancy, and that equals my outline. Next, I do an advised 100 or more practice problems which is a mix of multiple-choice and essay-style problems. I highlight the answers to the questions I missed in my outline, add points if not present in my outline, study the weak areas twice as much as those areas I'm strong in, talk to the professor about things you don't understand, take the exam, and earn great grades. @Learnlawbetter thank you for sharing mature and levelheaded advice. I'm now a 2L. This channel is law school gold.
@tinaalvarez9118
7 жыл бұрын
People, listen to this carefully and do it. Don't wait until the last minute, it can hurt you're exam finals. This is a key area in my studies I learned from this video that are so important and very brilliantly stated. Thank you for all you do. Tina
@stevesales4986
6 жыл бұрын
Excellent suggestions. Outlining each class was the single most helpful thing I did to learn law and prepare for the finals. For most topics I had separate sub paragraphs for rule statements and elements. I did not have time to do every assignment and case brief, but i did finish a good outline for every class.
@Learnlawbetter
6 жыл бұрын
Since you are doing the work and seeing improvement, I was hoping you could answer a question for me. On average, how much time a week are you spending on law school? By this I mean class time, the commute, and study time?
@stevesales4986
6 жыл бұрын
LOL, hours per week that I can devote to law school has been a major issue that a lot of thought was put into - I got a weekly planner and recorded how much time was spent on various activities - including law school - so I can answer your question exactly. Bottom line, I tried to do it on 25 hours a week of class and study time, but ended averaging just under 30 hours a week. I went to an online school (Concord, which of course you are familiar with) so commuting was not an issue, and there were only 12 units a semester, but am telling anyone who asks that about 40 hours a week is needed, more if you have no legal background and want A's. I did pass with A's and B's, but am taking at least a semester off. I can answer in more detail by email if you would like to know more - like I said, a lot of thought was put into law school time management.
@jamesgilliam8501
6 жыл бұрын
Some time ago, one of our Professors advised in a newsletter that a good way to revise for an exam is to outline the exam and study the outline not the answer you come up with using your outline in as much as the text of the current [the exam you're taking in real time limited to 3 hours 15 minutes] exam will have the same theme but different wording. Taking her advice to heart, I've outlined a question from Part B of the 2016 exam and present the fruits of my efforts below for your revision consideration: Vanessa has been working for the Ace taxi company as a driver for six months. Ace pay Vanessa’s national insurance and tax but she has to purchase her own car and insurance. She works according to very strict protocols governing how clients must be treated (this includes a script telling her how to greet clients and how her job of taxi driving must be done). On the day in question, Vanessa had collected Ian, a long term client of Ace, who had arranged to be driven to the airport to catch an urgent flight. Whilst in the car Ian began to choke on some nuts that he was eating. Vanessa panicked and diverted the car from the usual route to the airport into a quiet area - with the intention of providing first aid. Unfortunately, she collided with another car whilst doing so. Ian had begun to recover on his own, but Vanessa was having a serious argument with the other driver, Sally, when she lost her temper and violently attacked Sally, rendering her unconscious. Ian, now very alarmed, tried to leave the taxi but Vanessa slammed the door and insisted (against Ian’s protests) on driving him to the airport. Ian’s hand was caught in the car door and he suffered a bad injury. Advise Ace as to their rights and liabilities in respect of Ian’s and Sally’s injuries. General remarks: The question concerns vicarious liability, trespass to the person, false imprisonment and negligence. Some of the cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use include: Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 Facts A driving instructor was injured by his pupil when the pupil negligently crashed. Issue Could the learner driver (pupil) be liable? Decision Yes. Reasoning By being on the road, the learner driver is expected to behave as a reasonable driver. Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158. An English tort law case, establishing an employer's vicarious liability for assault, even where it may be intentional or pre-meditated. Previously, judges had been unwilling to impose liability where assaults were motivated by revenge or vengeance; it was established however that following the decision of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, that where an assault is closely linked to the duties of an employee, the employer should be held vicariously liable. Judge LJ did not look to establish that the stabbing had occurred in the course of Cranston's employment, but whether the stabbing was closely connected to his work, and instruction. It was of particular importance that Mr Cranston had been instructed by Mr Pollock, and was known to be, violent and intimidating toward customers: “Mr Pollock chose to employ Cranston, knowing and approving of his aggressive tendencies, which he encouraged rather than curbed, and the assault on Mr Mattis represented the culmination of an incident which began in Mr Pollock's premises and involved his customers, in which his employee behaved in the violent and aggressive manner which Mr Pollock expected of him.” Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 14 An English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11. JUDGMENT The Supreme Court unanimously allows the Claimant’s appeal and holds the Respondent vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Mr Khan, in attacking the Claimant. Lord Toulson gives the lead judgment. REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT The court has to consider two matters. First, the court must ask what function or field of activities has been entrusted by the employer to the employee (i.e. what was the nature of his job). This is to be viewed broadly. Second, the court must decide whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable. Applying that test here, it was Mr Khan’s job to attend to customers and respond to their inquiries. His conduct in responding to the Claimant’s request with abuse was inexcusable, but interacting with customers was within the field of activities assigned to him by his employer. What happened thereafter was an unbroken sequence of events. The connection between the field of activities assigned to Mr Khan and his employment did not cease at the moment when he came out from behind the counter and followed the Claimant onto the forecourt. There are two reasons to draw this conclusion. First, it is not correct to regard Mr Khan as having metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped out from behind the counter - he was following up on what he said to the Claimant. Secondly, when Mr Khan followed the Claimant to his car and told him not to come back to the petrol station, that there was not something personal between them, but an order to keep away from his employer’s premises. In giving the order he was purporting to act about his employer’s business. Mr Khan’s motive in the attack is irrelevant. It does not matter whether he was motivated by personal racism rather than a desire to benefit his employer’s business. Lord Dyson agrees with the reasons given by Lord Toulson and emphasises that the close connection test is the correct test to apply. A good answer to this question would… 1. Explore the question of employee status and note that the facts tending to indicate a quite significant degree of control over how the role of taxi driver is performed. 2. Argue that this case can be distinguished from others where a deviation in the standard route has proved fatal. 3. Argue that Nettleship will apply to any assessment of Vanessa’s liability and her employer’s vicarious liability. By outlining - not answering - past exam questions you can apply the outline to any vicarious liability question on the exam. For example: "Angela was visiting her friend Betsy. She complained of a severe headache and Betsy gave her a box of painkillers that had been prescribed by her (Betsy’s) doctor. On the outside of the box and on a leaflet inside, there was a note reading: “Do not consume with alcohol. May, cause severe nausea and diarrhoea.” Angela had drunk two small glasses of wine. She took two of the painkillers (the recommended dose for an adult). An hour later she became violently ill and was admitted to the Downbeat Hospital. She was examined by Conrad, a doctor, and told him about the pills she had taken. Conrad arranged for her to be admitted and prescribed a drug to treat her condition. Daphne, the nurse on duty, misread the doctor’s notes and gave her only 10 per cent of the dosage that Conrad prescribed. Angela became more seriously ill and required painful and debilitating abdominal surgery. There is a strong possibility that, if she had been given the correct dosage, she would have recovered after a few days. It has now been established that Angela suffered from an extremely rare allergy to one of the ingredients of the painkillers. No other case has been identified where a person taking one of these painkillers suffered a comparable reaction. It cannot be established whether the wine had contributed to the reaction." "Advise Angela as to any claims in negligence against the Downbeat Hospital. "(Students are not required to discuss the area of Product Liability.)" The template I use in answering problem questions is: Introduction - Legal issues? - Conclusion so my Introduction might look like this: In this question we are asked to advise Claimant Angela regarding possible claims against Defendant Downbeat Hospital. While the history prior to Angela’s admission to hospital is certainly pertinent it has no bearing upon the hospital’s ultimate liability for the damage sustained by Angela while an inpatient there.
@Learnlawbetter
6 жыл бұрын
That is a good idea, especially when one doesn’t have an idea of how to structure an essay.
@jamesgilliam8501
6 жыл бұрын
In the UK everything - including problem questions - are essay and all answers are to be in 'long hand' and follow the basic rules of essay writing - for example [from one of my posts on the EU law student forum]: There - I think - is no argument that EU Law is a huge subject - especially if you do not reside in any of the 28 member states. However, Prof. Paul Craig of St. John’s College, Oxford tells us - and I believe him - that “there is no area of the law that is not touched by EU law.” So then, if that is true, why not approach the study of it like any other section of law, like tort or contract? It follows then, that the way you structure your essay and problem question answers would be the same in any case. Here are the things ALL [botany - chemistry - psychology - law] essays must have: Introduction A short statement about the subject of your argument - not a thumbnail printed harangue about the whole subject. Discover what the question is asking and speak to that and nothing else. For the above question, your Introduction might look something like this: Introduction A central reasoning in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The next part of any essay is the Body containing three to five arguments and sub-arguments in support of the main argument - for time management purposes - one paragraph for each. Let’s devote a little time to time management and this is crucial. For the below question you have 40 minutes to complete the: introduction - body [containing 3 paragraphs] and - conclusion. This is the standard 5 part essay. Breaking down the above you would spend 3-4 minutes on the introduction. Five minutes per each point (15 minutes). Saving at least 5 minutes for the conclusion that is not merely a summary of the above and absolutely does not provide ANY NEW information! That’s only 24 minutes out of 40 - relax and take a deep breath and believe you can do this. You can. Actually, you have - dividing 4 questions into 3 hours - 45 minutes to answer the question and that is why you should spend 5 minutes outlining your answer and in this case at the top of the page you put: INTRODUCTION LEGAL ISSUES: Dir 70/50 - Dassonville [1974] - Cassis de Dijon [1979] - Rule of reason MEQRs allowed if they protect culture, environment or consumers - Mutual recognition allowed in one allowed in all - is it a selling arrangement? - Art 35 - Art 36 justifications policy, morality, national security - protection of life, humans, animals and plants - national treasures - industrial/commercial property CONCLUSION To derive the body of your answer you need to “mine” the question for clues. Biborova produces vodka cocktails in plastic bottles in the MS of Latvia desires to expand market to the MS of Poland whose laws mandate glass bottles citing consumer protection and public health as a means of avoiding MEQR issues. Is this argument tenable? You need to - using case law - [if you represent the company] convince the examiner it is not, however, [if you represent the Polish government] you need to convince the examiner that this may be an exception. Every argument has at least two sides. There is case law that suggests that Poland’s advertising law breaches EU law and Poland’s possible defence that it does not is going to be hard to prove. That said - here’s my answer to the question: Introduction A central requirement in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka cocktails) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The case for Biborova In order to prevail in the ECJ Biborova’s lawyers must prove that Poland is illegally applying MEQRs defined in Dassonville [1974] as any measure capable of hindering inter-community trade by enforcing its Intoxicating Substances and Advertisement laws. MEQRs are classified in Cassis de Dijon [1979] as either distinctly or indistinctly applicable. Indistinct MEQRs are allowed if they protect the environment as in Commission v Denmark [1988] or protect the consumer which is Poland’s contention here. However, in this case we must take into account mutual recognition where something allowed in one state - plastic bottles in Latvia - should be allowed in all states including Poland per Walter Rau [1982] and Commission v Germany [1987]. Indistinct MEQRs are also allowed if they constitute a selling arrangement as for example Keck [1993] but this is not applicable here. Article 110(1) prohibits discrimination between similar domestic goods and imports see Commission v Italy [1985] here it is most important to consider the effect not the purpose of the law - the effect here is to make it unprofitable for Biborova to sell its product - defined in the Italian Art Case [1962] as something valued in money that is subject to commercial transactions. Article 110(2) prohibits discrimination between competing domestic goods and imports as for example in the case of Commission v UK [1983] which begs the question: Do products compete and do taxes favour domestic goods over imports? Article 49(2) deals with unjustified restrictions as a form of discrimination, see for example Gebhard [1995] (Trade between Member States is not likely to be impeded, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by the application to products from other Member States) national actions liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms must not discriminate, must be in the public interest, must be suitable to attain the objective, and must not go beyond the necessary. The threshold question is do Poland’s Alcohol and Advertising laws comply? Biborova’s lawyers take the position that they do not. The case for the government of Poland Most likely the government will mount an Article 36 defence of its statutes on a public policy basis per Thompson [1978] (need to protect the right to mint coinage which is traditionally regarded as involving the fundamental interests of the state) and it might even make a case for its advertisement statute on moral grounds per Henn & Darby [1979] Lord Diplock said: ‘The European Court seeks to give effect to what it conceives to be the spirit rather than the letter of the Treaties…It views the communities as living and expanding organisms and the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties as changing to match their growth.’ Article 114 imposes duties and restrictions on the state. There are limits on Art. 114 as in the Tobacco Advertising cases of [2000] and [2006] A directive (98/43) effectively banning all (non-trade) advertising on tobacco products was enacted on the basis of [Art 114 TFEU] There were differences between Member States’ approaches to tobacco product marketing - some Member States favoured complete bans, whereas others took a more liberal approach. Germany objected to this directive, claiming that the measure went beyond the scope of Art. 114, was ultra vires and so should therefore be annulled. Was the directive ultra vires? The ECJ said yes and the directive was annulled because Directive 98/43’s prohibition of advertising was so exhaustive that it could not be justified by the need to eliminate obstacles to inter-state trade/the freedom to provide services, especially in areas where inter-state trade was negligible. Here, the statute is not exhaustive but overly restrictive and cannot be sustained and Art 114 TFEU does not provide a general power to regulate the internal market; measures must genuinely have their objective set on improving market conditions and must remove existing or future obstacles to inter-state trade. A member state’s concerns must relate to the environment, the working environment, or exceptions to Art. 36 in order to retain the existing national legislation. Conclusion The environmental concerns of Poland’s glass over plastic approach would be sustainable since plastic bottles are an immense environmental problem not only in the EU states but are a Global problem and the Polish government has the right to ban plastic containers in Poland in the interest of environmental protection. If Biborova wants to expand to Poland they have to retool their packaging to comply with Polish law. However, Poland’s Advertisement law is not sustainable per the Tobacco Advertising cases above.
@jamesgilliam8501
6 жыл бұрын
In the UK everything - including problem questions - are essay and all answers are to be in 'long hand' and follow the basic rules of essay writing - for example [from one of my posts on the EU law student forum]: There - I think - is no argument that EU Law is a huge subject - especially if you do not reside in any of the 28 member states. However, Prof. Paul Craig of St. John’s College, Oxford tells us - and I believe him - that “there is no area of the law that is not touched by EU law.” So then, if that is true, why not approach the study of it like any other section of law, like tort or contract? It follows then, that the way you structure your essay and problem question answers would be the same in any case. Here are the things ALL [botany - chemistry - psychology - law] essays must have: Introduction A short statement about the subject of your argument - not a thumbnail printed harangue about the whole subject. Discover what the question is asking and speak to that and nothing else. For the above question, your Introduction might look something like this: Introduction A central reasoning in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The next part of any essay is the Body containing three to five arguments and sub-arguments in support of the main argument - for time management purposes - one paragraph for each. Let’s devote a little time to time management and this is crucial. For the below question you have 40 minutes to complete the: introduction - body [containing 3 paragraphs] and - conclusion. This is the standard 5 part essay. Breaking down the above you would spend 3-4 minutes on the introduction. Five minutes per each point (15 minutes). Saving at least 5 minutes for the conclusion that is not merely a summary of the above and absolutely does not provide ANY NEW information! That’s only 24 minutes out of 40 - relax and take a deep breath and believe you can do this. You can. Actually, you have - dividing 4 questions into 3 hours - 45 minutes to answer the question and that is why you should spend 5 minutes outlining your answer and in this case at the top of the page you put: INTRODUCTION LEGAL ISSUES: Dir 70/50 - Dassonville [1974] - Cassis de Dijon [1979] - Rule of reason MEQRs allowed if they protect culture, environment or consumers - Mutual recognition allowed in one allowed in all - is it a selling arrangement? - Art 35 - Art 36 justifications policy, morality, national security - protection of life, humans, animals and plants - national treasures - industrial/commercial property CONCLUSION To derive the body of your answer you need to “mine” the question for clues. Biborova produces vodka cocktails in plastic bottles in the MS of Latvia desires to expand market to the MS of Poland whose laws mandate glass bottles citing consumer protection and public health as a means of avoiding MEQR issues. Is this argument tenable? You need to - using case law - [if you represent the company] convince the examiner it is not, however, [if you represent the Polish government] you need to convince the examiner that this may be an exception. Every argument has at least two sides. There is case law that suggests that Poland’s advertising law breaches EU law and Poland’s possible defence that it does not is going to be hard to prove. That said - here’s my answer to the question: Introduction A central requirement in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka cocktails) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The case for Biborova In order to prevail in the ECJ Biborova’s lawyers must prove that Poland is illegally applying MEQRs defined in Dassonville [1974] as any measure capable of hindering inter-community trade by enforcing its Intoxicating Substances and Advertisement laws. MEQRs are classified in Cassis de Dijon [1979] as either distinctly or indistinctly applicable. Indistinct MEQRs are allowed if they protect the environment as in Commission v Denmark [1988] or protect the consumer which is Poland’s contention here. However, in this case we must take into account mutual recognition where something allowed in one state - plastic bottles in Latvia - should be allowed in all states including Poland per Walter Rau [1982] and Commission v Germany [1987]. Indistinct MEQRs are also allowed if they constitute a selling arrangement as for example Keck [1993] but this is not applicable here. Article 110(1) prohibits discrimination between similar domestic goods and imports see Commission v Italy [1985] here it is most important to consider the effect not the purpose of the law - the effect here is to make it unprofitable for Biborova to sell its product - defined in the Italian Art Case [1962] as something valued in money that is subject to commercial transactions. Article 110(2) prohibits discrimination between competing domestic goods and imports as for example in the case of Commission v UK [1983] which begs the question: Do products compete and do taxes favour domestic goods over imports? Article 49(2) deals with unjustified restrictions as a form of discrimination, see for example Gebhard [1995] (Trade between Member States is not likely to be impeded, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by the application to products from other Member States) national actions liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms must not discriminate, must be in the public interest, must be suitable to attain the objective, and must not go beyond the necessary. The threshold question is do Poland’s Alcohol and Advertising laws comply? Biborova’s lawyers take the position that they do not. The case for the government of Poland Most likely the government will mount an Article 36 defence of its statutes on a public policy basis per Thompson [1978] (need to protect the right to mint coinage which is traditionally regarded as involving the fundamental interests of the state) and it might even make a case for its advertisement statute on moral grounds per Henn & Darby [1979] Lord Diplock said: ‘The European Court seeks to give effect to what it conceives to be the spirit rather than the letter of the Treaties…It views the communities as living and expanding organisms and the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties as changing to match their growth.’ Article 114 imposes duties and restrictions on the state. There are limits on Art. 114 as in the Tobacco Advertising cases of [2000] and [2006] A directive (98/43) effectively banning all (non-trade) advertising on tobacco products was enacted on the basis of [Art 114 TFEU] There were differences between Member States’ approaches to tobacco product marketing - some Member States favoured complete bans, whereas others took a more liberal approach. Germany objected to this directive, claiming that the measure went beyond the scope of Art. 114, was ultra vires and so should therefore be annulled. Was the directive ultra vires? The ECJ said yes and the directive was annulled because Directive 98/43’s prohibition of advertising was so exhaustive that it could not be justified by the need to eliminate obstacles to inter-state trade/the freedom to provide services, especially in areas where inter-state trade was negligible. Here, the statute is not exhaustive but overly restrictive and cannot be sustained and Art 114 TFEU does not provide a general power to regulate the internal market; measures must genuinely have their objective set on improving market conditions and must remove existing or future obstacles to inter-state trade. A member state’s concerns must relate to the environment, the working environment, or exceptions to Art. 36 in order to retain the existing national legislation. Conclusion The environmental concerns of Poland’s glass over plastic approach would be sustainable since plastic bottles are an immense environmental problem not only in the EU states but are a Global problem and the Polish government has the right to ban plastic containers in Poland in the interest of environmental protection. If Biborova wants to expand to Poland they have to retool their packaging to comply with Polish law. However, Poland’s Advertisement law is not sustainable per the Tobacco Advertising cases above.
@jamesgilliam8501
6 жыл бұрын
In the UK everything - including problem questions - are essay and all answers are to be in 'long hand' and follow the basic rules of essay writing - for example [from one of my posts on the EU law student forum]: I don't have room to print out the question but I think you get the idea from the answer - and this is supposed to be a post on essay writing. There - I think - is no argument that EU Law is a huge subject - especially if you do not reside in any of the 28 member states. However, Prof. Paul Craig of St. John’s College, Oxford tells us - and I believe him - that “there is no area of the law that is not touched by EU law.” So then, if that is true, why not approach the study of it like any other section of law, like tort or contract? It follows then, that the way you structure your essay and problem question answers would be the same in any case. Here are the things ALL [botany - chemistry - psychology - law] essays must have: Introduction A short statement about the subject of your argument - not a thumbnail printed harangue about the whole subject. Discover what the question is asking and speak to that and nothing else. For the above question, your Introduction might look something like this: Introduction A central reasoning in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The next part of any essay is the Body containing three to five arguments and sub-arguments in support of the main argument - for time management purposes - one paragraph for each. Let’s devote a little time to time management and this is crucial. For the below question you have 40 minutes to complete the: introduction - body [containing 3 paragraphs] and - conclusion. This is the standard 5 part essay. Breaking down the above you would spend 3-4 minutes on the introduction. Five minutes per each point (15 minutes). Saving at least 5 minutes for the conclusion that is not merely a summary of the above and absolutely does not provide ANY NEW information! That’s only 24 minutes out of 40 - relax and take a deep breath and believe you can do this. You can. Actually, you have - dividing 4 questions into 3 hours - 45 minutes to answer the question and that is why you should spend 5 minutes outlining your answer and in this case at the top of the page you put: INTRODUCTION LEGAL ISSUES: Dir 70/50 - Dassonville [1974] - Cassis de Dijon [1979] - Rule of reason MEQRs allowed if they protect culture, environment or consumers - Mutual recognition allowed in one allowed in all - is it a selling arrangement? - Art 35 - Art 36 justifications policy, morality, national security - protection of life, humans, animals and plants - national treasures - industrial/commercial property CONCLUSION That said - here’s my answer to the question: Introduction A central requirement in EU law is “freedom of movement” of goods between member states and ensuring the “protection” against Measures - Equivalent to - Quantitative - Restrictions [MEQRs] and in order to accomplish this the absolute requirement is to examine the “effect” not the “purpose” of the host state’s enactment of - in our case: Poland’s Intoxicating Substances Law 2010 and the Advertisement Law 2011. This short paper will attempt to sort out the legal methods available to Bobrova allowing its expansion of its product (Vodka cocktails) into the Polish beverage market without incurring prohibitive costs that would nullify any possible profit margins. The company’s case will be presented reasoning that Poland’s laws amount to MEQR violations and the Polish government’s defences will be offered in mitigation, however, these - history shows - usually fail. The case for Biborova In order to prevail in the ECJ Biborova’s lawyers must prove that Poland is illegally applying MEQRs defined in Dassonville [1974] as any measure capable of hindering inter-community trade by enforcing its Intoxicating Substances and Advertisement laws. MEQRs are classified in Cassis de Dijon [1979] as either distinctly or indistinctly applicable. Indistinct MEQRs are allowed if they protect the environment as in Commission v Denmark [1988] or protect the consumer which is Poland’s contention here. However, in this case we must take into account mutual recognition where something allowed in one state - plastic bottles in Latvia - should be allowed in all states including Poland per Walter Rau [1982] and Commission v Germany [1987]. Indistinct MEQRs are also allowed if they constitute a selling arrangement as for example Keck [1993] but this is not applicable here. Article 110(1) prohibits discrimination between similar domestic goods and imports see Commission v Italy [1985] here it is most important to consider the effect not the purpose of the law - the effect here is to make it unprofitable for Biborova to sell its product - defined in the Italian Art Case [1962] as something valued in money that is subject to commercial transactions. Article 110(2) prohibits discrimination between competing domestic goods and imports as for example in the case of Commission v UK [1983] which begs the question: Do products compete and do taxes favour domestic goods over imports? Article 49(2) deals with unjustified restrictions as a form of discrimination, see for example Gebhard [1995] (Trade between Member States is not likely to be impeded, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by the application to products from other Member States) national actions liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms must not discriminate, must be in the public interest, must be suitable to attain the objective, and must not go beyond the necessary. The threshold question is do Poland’s Alcohol and Advertising laws comply? Biborova’s lawyers take the position that they do not. The case for the government of Poland Most likely the government will mount an Article 36 defence of its statutes on a public policy basis per Thompson [1978] (need to protect the right to mint coinage which is traditionally regarded as involving the fundamental interests of the state) and it might even make a case for its advertisement statute on moral grounds per Henn & Darby [1979] Lord Diplock said: ‘The European Court seeks to give effect to what it conceives to be the spirit rather than the letter of the Treaties…It views the communities as living and expanding organisms and the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties as changing to match their growth.’ Article 114 imposes duties and restrictions on the state. There are limits on Art. 114 as in the Tobacco Advertising cases of [2000] and [2006] A directive (98/43) effectively banning all (non-trade) advertising on tobacco products was enacted on the basis of [Art 114 TFEU] There were differences between Member States’ approaches to tobacco product marketing - some Member States favoured complete bans, whereas others took a more liberal approach. Germany objected to this directive, claiming that the measure went beyond the scope of Art. 114, was ultra vires and so should therefore be annulled. Was the directive ultra vires? The ECJ said yes and the directive was annulled because Directive 98/43’s prohibition of advertising was so exhaustive that it could not be justified by the need to eliminate obstacles to inter-state trade/the freedom to provide services, especially in areas where inter-state trade was negligible. Here, the statute is not exhaustive but overly restrictive and cannot be sustained and Art 114 TFEU does not provide a general power to regulate the internal market; measures must genuinely have their objective set on improving market conditions and must remove existing or future obstacles to inter-state trade. A member state’s concerns must relate to the environment, the working environment, or exceptions to Art. 36 in order to retain the existing national legislation. Conclusion The environmental concerns of Poland’s glass over plastic approach would be sustainable since plastic bottles are an immense environmental problem not only in the EU states but are a Global problem and the Polish government has the right to ban plastic containers in Poland in the interest of environmental protection. If Biborova wants to expand to Poland they have to retool their packaging to comply with Polish law. However, Poland’s Advertisement law is not sustainable per the Tobacco Advertising cases above.
@tyyy6691
4 жыл бұрын
Wow I take it that you are a proficient student or even teacher.
@JDHopeful
4 жыл бұрын
Your videos are always helpful, especially now. I just started law school on the 17th. It’s on a block schedule, so torts is only 1 month, then we swap to another class. It’s been an experience!
@Learnlawbetter
4 жыл бұрын
I’ve often thought that would be a great way of teaching law school courses. Do you have the sense that you are learning the material at a deep level?
@JDHopeful
4 жыл бұрын
Not entirely, however I have nothing law school related to compare it to. It could entirely be because I’m a 1L. I’m an online student and I tend to learn better in person so that’s likely a large factor. However I am putting in 50 hours a week to outline and work on hypos. Hopefully the smoke clears.
@JDHopeful
4 жыл бұрын
Actually, outlining led me back to your channel. It’s great getting feedback and finding out that I was doing an outline correctly. I’ve never written one before. Thanks again!
@halehale7605
6 жыл бұрын
Great short and informative video. KZitem needs more people like you.
@elohimsown9244
4 жыл бұрын
Thank You, Professor Baiz for your lectures. They have been extremely helpful!
@Learnlawbetter
4 жыл бұрын
Glad they are helping.
@mrgeorgewillhelpUbuildwealth
Жыл бұрын
OMG!! Prof Beau is from North Carolina too!!!
@Learnlawbetter
Жыл бұрын
Moved from NC in 2018. Loved the years I was there.
@tombob2845
5 жыл бұрын
Excellent Professor, you are doing a great job explaining. Thanks
@East-of5dn
4 жыл бұрын
I appreciate you so much. You’re a HUGE HELP.✅✅✅✅✅✨✨✨✨✨💯
@Learnlawbetter
4 жыл бұрын
You are so welcome
@mrgeorgewillhelpUbuildwealth
Жыл бұрын
Thankkksss 4 EMPHASIZING THIS!!!
@almanew4647
6 жыл бұрын
This has helped me a lot, thank you very much for this video.
@hyojinlee
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this video! :)
@MiaMixx
6 жыл бұрын
You are God sent.
@destinydestiny2390
6 жыл бұрын
Awesome content!! What would you say is the difference between taking notes and outlining are they the same?
@Learnlawbetter
6 жыл бұрын
Notes are what you take before and during class. After class you synthesize your notes into an outline.
@destinydestiny2390
6 жыл бұрын
Ah i see thank you!!
@Checkersss
2 жыл бұрын
So don’t put case briefs in your outline? I’m debating whether or not I should add it in or just have it separate from my outline and refer to that if needed.
@Learnlawbetter
2 жыл бұрын
After the case is discussed, there is almost no reason to look at the case brief before the exam. Just take the rule statement and place that into your outline.
@Checkersss
2 жыл бұрын
@@Learnlawbetter Perfect thank you! Still figuring this all out, 2 weeks into law school. Can you make a video about what we should be doing when starting law school (ie when to start outlining, when to start taking practice exams, etc?)
@blader3904
6 жыл бұрын
You inspired me to keep improving.
@TheAwhi
7 жыл бұрын
Brilliant Video
@ashleebritton1234
4 жыл бұрын
Is it true that law students should focus most of their study attention on outlines and rules? I seen a video talking about not engaging in futile efforts in law school. Some people place a heavy value on doing well on case briefing and cold calls while the smart students focus on what will be on the exams ie outlines & rules.
@Learnlawbetter
4 жыл бұрын
You should always “keep the end in mind,” and that means focusing on activities that will help you on the exam. With case briefing, many students spend too much time on them because they do them the wrong way. In my video on the FIRAC case briefing method, I show how to prepare short case briefs that help you prepare for your exams.
@ashleebritton1234
4 жыл бұрын
@@Learnlawbetter Thank you for the information. I will watch the video.
@shadenyakoub671
3 жыл бұрын
Hello. If possible, I would like to get some clarification on outlines, please. In one of your videos on outlines, you mentioned that an outline is a summary of your notes written before class and notes written in class. In another video, you mention that we should include rule statements (only?). So, does an outline include only rule statements or notes or both? Thanks!
@smartareavlog1735
3 жыл бұрын
Wah wah bhai ji 🌹🌹
@AlicetheWonder
3 жыл бұрын
Do I have to literally memorize my outline verbatim? it's about 17-30 pages for each class...
@Learnlawbetter
3 жыл бұрын
Noooooo! That’s basically impossible. But you can create a one page online with the most important concepts-memorize one page for each course. Think of that one page as the key to unlock the longer 17-30 pages in each course.
@AlicetheWonder
3 жыл бұрын
That's a great relief! Thank you so much for all these valuable info for succeeding in law school!!
Пікірлер: 43