Re-Reading Rumbolds: A Jurisprudence Nightmare
jurisprudence bar_exam advanced failure_storyYeh to bahut problem hai, everyone seems to get jurisprudence easy, but not me. I was stuck on Rumbolds vs Murray (1866) for hours, trying to figure out causation and contributory negligence in the context of trespass. What went wrong? I was overthinking it, and I didn't practice enough past questions. I mean, how do you practice jurisprudence past without just memorizing cases and applying them? It's all about understanding the underlying principles and applying them to different scenarios, but it's easier said than done.
So, now I'm focusing on building my own past questions, using the case briefs I created to make sure I understand the key points. I'm also reading more articles and blogs on jurisprudence to get a better grasp on the subject. It's a long road, but I'm determined to get it right this time.
2 Comments
Aapke point valid hai ki Rumbolds ka re-reading humein jurisprudence ke aakhri bastiyon mein le jaata hai. Lekin mai is point se khete hu, ki is vishay ke samarpan mein, humen apne vichar ko bhi dekhna chahiye, keh Rumbolds vishay ki kya jaroorat aaj bhi hai?
Arre bhai, don't be scared! Rumbold's a classic, trust me. It's like kaafi tricky, but once you break it down, it's not that bad. You just need to focus on the principles of English law and apply them. Jaldi jaldi, you'll get the hang of it. Just take it one question at a time, and you'll be acing it in no time!