Thanks for your excellent work! Me and User:Wikidea are going to really spruce up English contract law over the summer, so I hope you can chip in :). Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there are enough editors to get it working, really :(. I'm currently writing an article on the doctrine of privity which should be up soon, and my aim is to get English contract law and the sub-articles to GA by the end of the summer. Tort can wait until next year when I get to study it :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics and law - I cover tort in the second year. I think the idea is that one should get a firm grounding in basic civil law such as contract before venturing into the field that is tort. Maybe they feel if they strain our brains teaching us tort we might sue them for psychological harm? :P. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Privity in English law is my new article. If you've got some time could you take a peek through it? :). Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "references or inline"? As in, should cases be given within the prose or as an inline citation that appears at the end in "References"? Ironholds (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oh, the oscola bits. I've always seen them inline, which works fine for me. I don't like what people do with citing cases at the "references" section at the bottom - that's for citing facts, not giving case names. Not sure if there are any specific rules on the oscola bollocks being inline or at the bottom, though. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw it in your userspace - nice start! You'll need to add references in, of course. Want to collaborate on the article? I can pull out all my textbooks/journal archives and we could see if a case article can go to GA :). Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for me - I've studied it myself, and I've got great access to journals. I'm also looking at getting a pair of legislative bits up to GA, and I think I can get the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 up as well. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. My suggested format: legal background (situation pre-case), facts of the case, process, decisions of the judges (and comments) and then "views" or something including academic criticism. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I own four or five, latest editions (treitel 11th, McKendrick 7th, so on) - the rest are journal articles, which I have access to. I'll try and shove some more stuff in those articles this evening. I just ordered a text on contract theory, which should come in use. Apologies for the lackluster tone, I'm currently up to my knees in shitty, bastardly, idiotic clients at the firm I'm currently working at. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vicarious liability in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, it is a very nice article, and I think its really close to being B class (and from there then GA), which is the highest class it can achieve without going through a formal process, in case you are not familiar with the classifications. The reasons I went with C class deal with what is a common problem with the law articles. They are great for publication in a journal, but a little too legal for a general encyclopedia. For instance, "prima facie" is more of a legal term, and should either be explained or replaced with more general usage terms. Same with "onus of proof" and a few other terms that people with legal backgrounds surely know, but many in the general public may not know (see Wikipedia:The perfect article; Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible; and criteria #6 for B class articles ((Grading scheme))). Next, a few of the footnotes need to be fixed (5 & 16) as the footnotes come after the punctuation. As to content, "intoxication": drunkeness only, or would this include intoxication by drugs, and does this apply to both voluntary and involuntary intoxication? Lastly, the biggest issue is that outside of two main sources (I am assuming they are text books) all the other sources appear to be primary sources. Primary sources (cases, statutes) are fine for writing for law school, but per WP:NOR articles: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". Using them here and there is fine, but I would look to add some law journal sources, or other textbooks to either supplement what is their or replace some of the existing primary sources with. Remember that these are all minor issues, and alone would not drop it to C class, but combined they make it more C class than B. Again, the article is in good shape and conveys the general idea, however the classification scheme goes beyond just the content and covers more Wikipedia specific criteria. Now, if you are looking to get to GA, it would not be that far from GA once the above are addressed. Here are a few other items though that would need to be addressed:

• Footnotes, consistent format, some appear to italicize the case name while others do not, and the date is sometime in () and sometimes in [] and sometimes within nothing. Also #8 has an extra ' at the end of the case name.
• I would also suggest some work on the WP:LEAD to expand the coverage of the mental incapacity to include drunkeness and as "necessities" is clearly a big chunk of text in the body of the article, a mention of it in the lead rounds that part out.
• Infobox: there is not one and I doubt there is one as there are few for law articles, but there are navigation templates that can take their place, for instance ((Contract law)) might be appropriate. That or an image helps frame the opening. This is not required, but many reviewers at GA and FA may mention the lack of an infobox.

Hopefully this all helps, let me know if you have more questions or would like me to re-evaluate the article after you have addressed these items. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The too legal is a common problem, and actually too technical in general is a common problem across the board with many articles from medicine to plants. I even forget sometimes that I'm writing for a general audience and not those with a legal background, it's just hard to turn that off. As to the citations, I was wondering about that. To avoid all together (and in some ways avoid being inaccessible to non-legal types) you may want to use a citation template to make them uniform. Citation styles here in the US also vary (though I don't think quite as much as England), but not having the correct format only matters if you are writing for a court, a legal publication, or for school, so we are free to use something else on Wikipedia. This way readers without the legal background can learn about what Ch D or ER mean. Again, good luck and great job so far. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On July 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capacity in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

((User0|Candlewicke 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Creating legal relations in English law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi RichsLaw,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or ((anchors)) in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, ((User Hornbook)) to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, prenuptials are not considered legally binding. A recent Court of Appeal decision allowed the enforcement of a prenup made between two citizens of countries where they are valid, where it had been made in a country where prenups are valid, but there's nothing in England and Wales. Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right actually, I don't know why I thought they always were... They can have legal consequence in some circumstances (it's the courts discretion), but I'll change the edit. RichsLaw (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, I think the general idea in English courts is that they should influence the final decision, but not be binding. It will be interesting to see how the EWCA decision lines up with some Lords decisions, particularly Stack v Dowden. Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw this - want some help? We can turn it into a tasty DYK and GA :). Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look - I'm just finishing off a massive expansion of the article on the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (I'm all over the place these days!) and I've got some more stuff to polish off. Would you mind taking a look at Gray's Inn? I got it to GA, and I'm considering FAC. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw this! Very impressed :). I'm just rewriting the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 at the moment; once I've done that and added what I can to Vicarious liability, want to send that off to GAN? I'm sure it would be passed :). Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tort, Financial, Trusts, European and Constitutional, at the moment. I've written a few tort and trusts bits (Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, Trustee Act 2000), but on-wiki my current focus is this baby. Thankfully I've found a Scots law editor, so I'm pretty sure we can get it to FA! Want me to add vicarious liability to my list of things to look at? We could send it to GAN and get it reviewed. Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free; I've got a big stack of books and journals sitting next to me on my desk which I'm yet to tear open, so I'll go in again after you've done your think. I've got AGK doing the scots stuff, and the consumer bits and bobs can wait until I'm back within walking distance of a decent law library in the new year. Ironholds (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I've not slept in 20 hours and spent the time doing this. Enjoy! Ironholds (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

• Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK case based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.

• Complete that template and add it to existing cases.

• Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.

• Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking

• Create new articles for UKSC cases

• Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

• Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I have copied User:RichsLaw/Expert witnesses in English law to Expert witnesses in English law and User:RichsLaw/Redundancy in English law to Redundancy in English law I have credited you in the edit history. Cheers. Mais oui! (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted the copy-and-pastes in order to allow RichsLaw to move the sandbox articles to the mainspace, correctly retaining their attribution history. This is to allow RichsLaw to decide on how/if/when he wishes to proceed with his own sandbox articles. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion

These articles have now been deleted because they were incorrectly copied and pasted (unbeknown to my good self, you are meant to use the "Move" button to move draft articles into main space, in order to retain correct attribution). Another User has therefore suggested:

• "As the author has not edited since last October, it might be appropriate to move their sandbox to create an article while preserving the history—however, at least a week should be allowed after placing a request at their talk page."

Please consider this as the due request. If you have not responded on your Talk page within a week, we will use the Move function to initiate the articles in Main space. Please respond if you are unhappy with this proposal. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem guys, not got much time to edit at the moment but I'm happy for the starts I made to be used. RichsLaw (talk)

Thanks Richs! --Mais oui! (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]