School - first classes
Aug. 25th, 2012 10:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lloll4Spoke too fast last night. Turned up for classes to find that all was well; it was only because the dratted TA had a problem accessing the school system to deliver such important stuff as the required reading list to a section of the class (aka, the JD part of it), which has now been sent by email. Gah.
Classes so far:
(a) Commercial conflict of laws
Textbook: none, tho' we might get electronic copies of draft chapters of a book on the topic by one of the profs in school
Plus: no need to buy textbook; readings and cases found online
Minus: prof says it's easy but I don't believe him
So, this is apparently what happens when litigants have turf wars. Say you plan to sue someone in your country but the guy you're going after demurs and argues that really, the matter was better pursued in another jurisdiction. So before you can even go to court on your dispute you've got to go to court and decide where that dispute shd be decided first. I think later in the term we get to do a fun thing like renvoi, which is the art of running two hypothetical situations at once.
Prof is from Oxford and is actually here for half the term only; another prof will do the second half. Prof thinks self a barrel of laughs.
(b) Banking law
Textbook: Elliger's Modern Banking Law or Cranston's Principles of Banking Law (Prof dissed one and recced the other)
Plus: no final exam.
Minus: Ugh, banks.
It may change, but class is pretty boring. We spent the first seminar talking about what exactly is a bank and concluding we didn't have an answer. Also, have learnt that banks are evil.
(c) Corporate law
Textbooks: Still Walter Woon on Company Law and Cases and Materials in Company Law
Plus: No need to buy textbooks as we're using the same texts from Law of Biz Org from last term.
Minus: Need to do presentations, have midterm
Realised with horror that I'd forgotten most of what I learnt last term. No, really. Prof seems nice but I believe is actually very strict. Ok, it's not like I object to learning stuff. Prof talked a lot about the shaky standard of writing among students these days and said we'd need to spend a lil' time on it. Oookay.
(d) Comparative legal systems
Textbooks: none; reading all online
Plus: No need to buy textbooks.
Minus: Eh.
One might have thought that the wishy-washy topic of comparative legal systems would suit me just fine, but it was just infuriating to be told that "you'll feel like you're floating". If I wanted post-postmodern, socio-historic-cultural, touchy-feely talk of "what is culture? what is identity?" I'd have stayed with, I dunno, literary studies. Not to mention that the level of literarity (is there such a word) isn't really on the level of sophistication I'd expect of a really hard-hitting analysis/scholarly work. Like "Law's Limited Domain Confronts Morality's Universal Empire" by Alexander and Schauer. Seriously? You're basing your entire thesis around "law is special/evolved form of morality, because dude, we've got morality coming out of every orifice"? How did you tie that into relativism without a framework for discussing such things? You just went and listed examples!
Tho' we're getting more specific case studies next week, so maybe things will get better.
Prof thinks self is a barrel of laughs. We shall endure, etc.
(e) Shipping and admiralty law
Textbooks: actually quite a few, tho' not all have to be bought as we're only looking at a few chapters (I might just use library copy) in them.
Admiralty Law and Practice, Toh Kian Sing
The Law in Singapore on Carriage of Goods by Sea, Justice Tan Lee Meng
Carriage of Goods by Sea, John F. Wilson
Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading
Carver on Bill of Lading
Voyage Charters
Plus: Actually turned out to be rather fascinating
Minus: Saturday class.
I believe it's bad that I keep mixing up "shipper" and "carrier"...? Class will be taught by three people in turn, so I'm iffy about how that's going to work.
ETA: Also, have finally figured out reading list, which contains about 100 cases for the next 3/4 weeks. Joy.
Classes so far:
(a) Commercial conflict of laws
Textbook: none, tho' we might get electronic copies of draft chapters of a book on the topic by one of the profs in school
Plus: no need to buy textbook; readings and cases found online
Minus: prof says it's easy but I don't believe him
So, this is apparently what happens when litigants have turf wars. Say you plan to sue someone in your country but the guy you're going after demurs and argues that really, the matter was better pursued in another jurisdiction. So before you can even go to court on your dispute you've got to go to court and decide where that dispute shd be decided first. I think later in the term we get to do a fun thing like renvoi, which is the art of running two hypothetical situations at once.
Prof is from Oxford and is actually here for half the term only; another prof will do the second half. Prof thinks self a barrel of laughs.
(b) Banking law
Textbook: Elliger's Modern Banking Law or Cranston's Principles of Banking Law (Prof dissed one and recced the other)
Plus: no final exam.
Minus: Ugh, banks.
It may change, but class is pretty boring. We spent the first seminar talking about what exactly is a bank and concluding we didn't have an answer. Also, have learnt that banks are evil.
(c) Corporate law
Textbooks: Still Walter Woon on Company Law and Cases and Materials in Company Law
Plus: No need to buy textbooks as we're using the same texts from Law of Biz Org from last term.
Minus: Need to do presentations, have midterm
Realised with horror that I'd forgotten most of what I learnt last term. No, really. Prof seems nice but I believe is actually very strict. Ok, it's not like I object to learning stuff. Prof talked a lot about the shaky standard of writing among students these days and said we'd need to spend a lil' time on it. Oookay.
(d) Comparative legal systems
Textbooks: none; reading all online
Plus: No need to buy textbooks.
Minus: Eh.
One might have thought that the wishy-washy topic of comparative legal systems would suit me just fine, but it was just infuriating to be told that "you'll feel like you're floating". If I wanted post-postmodern, socio-historic-cultural, touchy-feely talk of "what is culture? what is identity?" I'd have stayed with, I dunno, literary studies. Not to mention that the level of literarity (is there such a word) isn't really on the level of sophistication I'd expect of a really hard-hitting analysis/scholarly work. Like "Law's Limited Domain Confronts Morality's Universal Empire" by Alexander and Schauer. Seriously? You're basing your entire thesis around "law is special/evolved form of morality, because dude, we've got morality coming out of every orifice"? How did you tie that into relativism without a framework for discussing such things? You just went and listed examples!
Tho' we're getting more specific case studies next week, so maybe things will get better.
Prof thinks self is a barrel of laughs. We shall endure, etc.
(e) Shipping and admiralty law
Textbooks: actually quite a few, tho' not all have to be bought as we're only looking at a few chapters (I might just use library copy) in them.
Admiralty Law and Practice, Toh Kian Sing
The Law in Singapore on Carriage of Goods by Sea, Justice Tan Lee Meng
Carriage of Goods by Sea, John F. Wilson
Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading
Carver on Bill of Lading
Voyage Charters
Plus: Actually turned out to be rather fascinating
Minus: Saturday class.
I believe it's bad that I keep mixing up "shipper" and "carrier"...? Class will be taught by three people in turn, so I'm iffy about how that's going to work.
ETA: Also, have finally figured out reading list, which contains about 100 cases for the next 3/4 weeks. Joy.