Question 1:

 5 marks for determining Brigit’s liability + 5 marks for determining George’s liability.

OR

 10 marks for determining the couple’s liability if you have explicitly mentioned that they ought
to be treated as a unit. Saying it was “implied” will not earn any marks.

Negative marks:

 Inability to read the actual question, eg, saying Brigit is still pregnant (even though she became
pregnant four years ago) or mixing up the names of the parties or even spell Brigit’s name
correctly (most people’s brains autocorrected it to “Bright” or even “Brigade”) etc.
 Poor handwriting and grammar to the extent that it makes reading the answer very difficult.
 No conclusion.
 Assuming you’re the judge instead of saying how you should feel the Court should decide the
case.
 Arguments based on pure conjectures will receive 50% marks out of the total. When making
conjectures, it is important to look at both sides. Eg, George is now the sole earning member
and this means that the family’s income is extremely limited and they do not have “sufficient
means”. This is a conjecture, as it assumes that George does not have a high paying job and that
Jacob is not financially self-sufficient (the question only mentions him needing physical care and
attention). If this assumption has been made, the other argument will also have to be addressed
(IF George actually does make enough to support his in-laws). And the conclusion should say
that the judgment should depend on how much George is earning. The same is true for people
who assumed that George is earning enough to support the entire family since Brigit felt
comfortable enough to leave her job.
 Simply reiterating precedents or repeating the law without adding any remark or reasoning of
your own, especially given the fact that the bench in the hypothetical case is larger than the
preceding ones.

Bonus marks (these will add marks to the answer even if it is incomplete in other ways, eg, if the
learner only deals with Brigit’s liability and not George’s):

 Creative solutions.
 Well-written and well-thought out answers.
 References to the Articles of the Constitution or other disciplinary studies / jurisprudential
theories. This is not necessary to get full marks.

Marks will not be affected by the learner’s own social and political leanings (regarding whether the
unemployed wife’s parents deserve maintenance or not.) Even the really cold-hearted answers that said
Mr and Mrs D’Souza did not deserve money because it was their own fault that they are poor have been
deemed acceptable.
Question 2:

 5 marks for defining idealism and pragmatism + 5 marks for analyzing a law through their lens
(these sections can be differentiated or interspersed, without attracting any negative marking).

Negative marks:

 Poor handwriting and grammar to the extent that it makes reading the answer very difficult.
 No conclusion.
 Obvious lack of research when formulating the answer (eg, one learner said that gay marriage
should ideally be legalized, but pragmatically it would be a bad idea because not only does it go
against the “law of nature” but also would result in
 Improper structure.

Bonus marks:

 Well-researched answers.
 Good structure and well-written.
 Creative viewpoints.

Note: It is almost highly improbably for someone to get full marks in their tutorials. The highest should
be 19.5. Learners obtaining a 20 were most likely exemplary, in both their structure and their reasoning.
A special shout-out to the lovely people who actually wrote in a very clear and easy to read handwriting.
And another one to the jokers in class who kept getting thrown out every week but still received very
high marks. I’m still upset at you for disrupting my class but I’m also incredibly proud of you.