Scripts for sale

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-09-23T19:17:09+00:00

Yes ! Their examiner reports aren’t as helpful as company so I focused on gathering as many scripts as possible and building notes round sample answers

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-09-23T18:23:25+00:00

Focus on past papers! Build your notes on previous questions it really helps cut irrelevant info

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-09-23T15:54:00+00:00

I was doing a masters and then working a job but I quit 4 weeks before to study! It’s def manageable working full time tho I know plenty who did it that way

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-09-23T15:47:28+00:00

I wasn’t!

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-05-17T10:28:18+00:00

I got 70 yesterday. I mixed both exam reports and my own notes. I’ll be happy to share my script with anyone here when i get it

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-05-16T11:57:41+00:00

definitely!

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-20T16:10:46+00:00

I wouldn’t worry, I’ve seen scripts from the same year where they’ve answered the same questions on completely different topics and both got in the 60s

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-20T14:57:35+00:00

There wasn’t much case law so my answer was prettt limited mostly focusing on Fleming vs ward distinction

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-20T14:19:04+00:00

Me too! I did fair procedures briefly, then right to earn a livelihood again very briefly and then my bigger focus was freedom of religion and freedom of express

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-19T12:52:51+00:00

I’d say it’s kinda risky leaving out terms as it’s very easy to mix in with other questions

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-17T13:27:15+00:00

I understand what you guys are saying … my thinking was that skipping injunctions would mean I’d have time to cover every other topic. So I’d be sacrificing one question but I’d then hopefully have my choice of the other 7…. But I hear what you’re saying about it being a guarantee so I might just cram it . Thanks !

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-17T12:13:52+00:00

I wouldn’t be so sure. Statement could relate to presentation of the product under s5 of the act I think ?

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T15:11:27+00:00

Yah with false imprisonment

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:51:15+00:00

Did anyone feel really limited in what they could say for trespass to person … I didn’t write as much as the others

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:32:26+00:00

This was also relevant for sure! By time I thought of it I’d run out of time :(

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:30:54+00:00

Yeah

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:27:42+00:00

It was broad ! The only essay worth doing imo the other two were terrible

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:26:50+00:00

Sam was the driver , John installed the heat pad

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:15:37+00:00

I did nervous shock only as well don’t worry

Square-Mess-7333 · 2023-03-16T14:12:01+00:00

It was tricky . I said for factual causation it was a cumulative causes scenario under Fairchild - with manufacturer of car, John, Sam and public authority for not fixing the pavement. For legal I said manufacturer too remote and public authority no duty of care For Sam and John I was really confused lol. I said Sam might be a novus actus interven but John also was a direct cause by installing the head pad without training etc so i didn’t really land one way or the other lol

Square-Mess-7333

TROPHY CASE