Introduction
Arthur v Betty
1
Trespass to Land
2
Trespass to Goods
Arthur v Clare
1
Negligence
2
False Imprisonment
3
Defamation
Conclusion
Figure 28.10 Structure of an Answer
When considering each cause of action the logical structure is as follows:
(1)
State briefly the elements of the cause of action. It is a good idea to
label them as Element (1), Element (2) and so on. It can also assist to attach a
brief label of one or two words to an element. So, for example when
organising the tort of trespass to land Element (1) might become Element (1)
Land and Element (2) might become Element (2) Possession. In later
discussion it is simpler to refer to the elements by their labels, that is as
Element (1) Land, Element (2) Possession, or just Element (1), Element (2))
and so on, in preference to using their full description which becomes clumsy.
By stating the elements you communicate to the reader everything needed for
the cause of action to be available. And since the primary reader is your
lecturer or examiner it also indicates to him or her that you know the content of
the relevant legal rule.
(2)
State which of these elements are clearly satisfied or not satisfied (with a
brief explanation if appropriate). Items that are clearly satisfied or not satisfied
do not require further consideration.
(3)
Indicate that the remaining elements involve ambiguity and give rise to
some issues.
Then deal with those issues. Use a heading to introduce each issue. Make the
heading a summary of the issue. There are five steps (and the core structure is
derived from the model for interpreting law):
(1)
State the issue in terms of law and fact. Explain that it is an issue
because the provision has more than one meaning.
(2)
State the possible meanings of the ambiguous provision giving rise to
the issue and the effect that each will cause.
(3)
State the arguments for and against each meaning. If possible evaluate
these arguments. In arguing a point resist the temptation to do what many
students do and launch into a general and undirected discussion of principles,
 |
 |
 |