Answering Biz Law Questions:

Answering a law question is not very different from answering other qualitative-type
questions. An answer should be:
(1) Clear. (Clarity will only come with understanding. Thus one needs to read up
thoroughly).
(2) Detailed (Answers should generally not be brief. Instead they should try to explain
things in detail, as often the devil is in the details).
(3) Well-organised (Answers should follow a logical sequence. For instance, the issue
of whether there is a breach should be addressed before the issue of whether there is any
defence for the breach).
(4) Show thinking (There should not be a blind regurgitation of the law. Instead the
thinking process should be highlighted. This can be shown in various ways. For instance,
the way in which the given facts are interpreted, the way in which certain assumptions are
made or the way in which general knowledge is applied, may all show thinking).
(5) Discuss the relevant issues (This means one should not discuss issues which the
parties are unlikely to dispute or argue about. For instance, if from the given facts, it is
obvious there is a contract, then the issue of whether there is indeed a contract should not
be discussed).
The only thing that may be different is that the answer should also, ideally speaking:
(6) Cite relevant cases/statutes (For instance, if a question asks: Is X entitled to do so?
And the answers given are:
(a) Yes he is.
(b) Yes he is by virtue of section ___of _________ Act or
Yes he is by virtue of the case of M v R.
(b) is better than (a) because it names the source of the law.
However, since you are not law students, there would not be much emphasis on citing
cases or sections, especially in class. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, everything is
comparative, and if there are 2 answers which are identical, but one cites relevant
cases/sections and the other does not, the one which cites would do better. Thus at least
while you are doing written work, you should try to support your answers with the
relevant cases or sections, where possible.
In relation to citing cases, students sometimes also ask whether it is sufficient to just cite
the name of the case or whether it is necessary to discuss the facts as well. Well, it all

depends on relevance. If your given facts are very different and all you are interested in is
the principle laid down by the case, then it would suffice just to cite the name of the case
and the principle. On the hand if your given facts are very similar to a case, then you may
want to cite the name of the case, the facts and the principle. This is because - since the
case is so similar to your own facts it will make your arguments much stronger).
Also note: as the course progresses well be discussing the answers to the tutorial
questions. But note: some things are subjective and there can be more than one correct
answer. Well be coming across this issue time and again.