70102 Foundations of Law (Subject review and notes)
Inspired by the good work of previous UTS student, Johanan Ottensooser at Oats and Sugar, I’ve decided to review my university subjects and share my notes and assignments.
Foundations of Law was my favourite subject of semester one of my first year. It’s one of the two law subjects (alongside Ethics, Law & Justice) that is pre- or co-requisite for the study of every other law subject at UTS. It is eight credit points, and comprises of two, two-hour, seminars per week.
What I wish I had known: To note down the page numbers and authors of ideas/things referred to in texts when answering seminar discussion questions. It would have saved me hours of re-reading when formulating exam notes, as citation at least by author surname, was expected in exam responses.
For most combined degree students, it is usually taken in the second semester of first year, but I was keen to get straight into law subjects in my first semester.
The reading workload was manageable, and it felt like substantially less reading than Ethics.
The course begins with a high-level introduction to the legal system and relevant legal history, before delving into practical skills such as statutory interpretation, writing a case note, and legal problem solving. Notably, Foundations appears to take the place of the previous introductory law subjects at UTS: Introduction to Law, and Legal Method and Research (‘LMR’). In supplementing LMR, legal research is given two seminars under the instruction of a librarian towards the middle of the course. Foundations then progresses into further Australian legal history, such as settlement, Terra nullius and recognition of Indigenous legal law. International law is briefly touched on in one seminar, before the subject advances to jurisprudence and critical legal theory.
I found each seminar very engaging and the subject coordinator was very responsive to questions via email and on the online discussion board.
Assessments
The assessments for the subject comprised of:
- Class participation (15%)
- Short writing task (5%)
- Case note (15%)
- Problem question and ‘research plan’ (25%)
- Final exam (40%)
This means it’s possible to pass the subject before the exam :)
1. Class participation
It was unclear exactly how this was assessed, but aiming to do as well as possible I made sure to contribute multiple times in every seminar and not miss any. Doing the readings before the seminar and highlighting key points to raise in discussion was very helpful. Around the middle of semester, the seminar leader provided each class member an indicative class participation grade. Following the receipt of this grade, everyone’s eagerness to participate noticeably increased.
I’m almost certain I was ‘that guy’ who always participated in class, but it was worthwhile for the resulting class participation mark I received.
2. Short writing task
The short writing task was a 300 word discussion piece on whether public opinion should be relevant to interpretation of the law. Previous student submissions (on a different topic) were provided as an example. It appears as though it was just a test of if we could reference appropriately, and to identify people that may require additional assistance in writing.
3. Case note
Our task was to write a case note of Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58 under prescribed headings. A large portion of the marks were awarded based on the ‘legal reasoning’ section.
I got a high distinction in the task. This was my submission.
4. Problem question and research strategy
We were presented with a scenario concerning unconscionable conduct within the context of a reverse mortgage product. We were given a somewhat analogous case, and were instructed to use it, and the authorities referred to within it, as the basis for our reasoning.
The research strategy component required us to discuss how we would go about finding more current or relevant (and parallel) authority, as the case dealt with legislation pre-Australian Consumer Law and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.
Timing of submission of this assignment got slightly stressful, as an assignment for Ethics was due around the same time. The subject coordinator slightly extended the deadline.
My mark was 80%, not as good as I hoped, but not terrible. Inferring from the feedback, had I more thoroughly raised counter-arguments, I probably could have scored an HD. This was my submission.
5. Final exam
The final open-book exam comprised of two parts: 1) problem solving, and 2) short answer questions.
Problem solving: We were given a case dealing with similar facts to the (unseen) problem question prior to the exam, and had to answer a problem question in IRAC format, reasoning using its authorities.
Short answers: The exam gave us a choice of four out of eight short answer questions. The questions related to the readings for specific seminars, and only covered topics discussed in the second half of semester (following the mid-semester break). The questions spanned international law, Indigenous law, as well as jurisprudence and critical legal theory.
My non-exhaustive jurisprudence and critical legal theory notes can be downloaded here.
Questions, feedback, and comments are welcomed, as a response here or on Twitter, or via Messenger. Additions to notes and assignments are welcomed as a response to this post.
I don’t mind (but the University might) if you plagarise assignments on this page. It’s probably better to use them as inspiration rather than as your submission.
