,LEV3701 Assignment 1 QUIZ (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 (746996) - DUE 31 March 2025…we wish
you all the best
Question 1
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
During a civil matter, the plaintiff wants to present the record of
the court’s finding in a criminal trial as evidence in the civil
matter that is based on the same facts. The evidence will be …
A.
evidence about a previous consistent statement.
B.
hearsay evidence.
C.
inadmissible opinion evidence.
D.
similar fact evidence.
Clear my choice
The correct answer is.
Similar Fact Evidence (D)
In a legal context, "similar fact evidence" refers to evidence that
shows the defendant has previously engaged in behavior or
actions similar to those at issue in the current case. In the
scenario described, the plaintiff wants to introduce findings from
a criminal trial that are based on the same facts. If the criminal
trial involved a finding that’s relevant to the civil case, the
record of that trial can be used as similar fact evidence.
,This type of evidence is typically allowed to demonstrate
patterns of behavior or to help establish the likelihood of a
particular event having occurred. For example, in a civil lawsuit
about assault, a prior criminal conviction for a similar assault
could be relevant and admissible as similar fact evidence.
Why the other answers don’t work:
A. Evidence about a previous consistent statement: This
refers to the use of a statement made earlier by a witness,
which is consistent with their testimony in court, to support
their credibility. It's not applicable in this case because
we're talking about a court's finding, not a statement made
outside of court.
B. Hearsay evidence: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement
offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For
example, if someone was testifying about what another
person said outside of court, it would generally be
considered hearsay and inadmissible. However, presenting
the court's findings in a criminal case isn’t hearsay because
it’s a formal, legal record from a previous trial.
C. Inadmissible opinion evidence: This refers to evidence
where someone offers their personal opinion or inference
about facts in the case, usually without proper qualification.
In this scenario, a court's finding isn’t a personal opinion;
it's a formal decision made based on legal reasoning, which
can be used as evidence in a civil case.
Question 2
Marked out of 1.00
, Flag question
Question text
In the case of a residuary clause, our courts must determine …
A.
what the English law currently states.
B.
what the Roman-Dutch law stated immediately before South
Africa became a Republic in 1961.
C.
what the English law stated immediately before South Africa
became a Republic in 1961.
D.
what the English law stated immediately before the Constitution
of the Republic of South African came into force in 1996.
The correct answer is:
B. what the Roman-Dutch law stated immediately before
South Africa became a Republic in 1961.
Here's the explanation:
In South African law, the residuary clause refers to a provision
in a will that deals with any property or assets that are not
specifically mentioned in the will. When interpreting such
clauses, South African courts rely on the legal tradition that
existed immediately before South Africa became a Republic
in 1961, which was the Roman-Dutch law.
Roman-Dutch law, which evolved from the Dutch legal system,
was the primary source of law in South Africa before it became
Semester 1 2025 (746996) - DUE 31 March 2025…we wish
you all the best
Question 1
Marked out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
During a civil matter, the plaintiff wants to present the record of
the court’s finding in a criminal trial as evidence in the civil
matter that is based on the same facts. The evidence will be …
A.
evidence about a previous consistent statement.
B.
hearsay evidence.
C.
inadmissible opinion evidence.
D.
similar fact evidence.
Clear my choice
The correct answer is.
Similar Fact Evidence (D)
In a legal context, "similar fact evidence" refers to evidence that
shows the defendant has previously engaged in behavior or
actions similar to those at issue in the current case. In the
scenario described, the plaintiff wants to introduce findings from
a criminal trial that are based on the same facts. If the criminal
trial involved a finding that’s relevant to the civil case, the
record of that trial can be used as similar fact evidence.
,This type of evidence is typically allowed to demonstrate
patterns of behavior or to help establish the likelihood of a
particular event having occurred. For example, in a civil lawsuit
about assault, a prior criminal conviction for a similar assault
could be relevant and admissible as similar fact evidence.
Why the other answers don’t work:
A. Evidence about a previous consistent statement: This
refers to the use of a statement made earlier by a witness,
which is consistent with their testimony in court, to support
their credibility. It's not applicable in this case because
we're talking about a court's finding, not a statement made
outside of court.
B. Hearsay evidence: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement
offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For
example, if someone was testifying about what another
person said outside of court, it would generally be
considered hearsay and inadmissible. However, presenting
the court's findings in a criminal case isn’t hearsay because
it’s a formal, legal record from a previous trial.
C. Inadmissible opinion evidence: This refers to evidence
where someone offers their personal opinion or inference
about facts in the case, usually without proper qualification.
In this scenario, a court's finding isn’t a personal opinion;
it's a formal decision made based on legal reasoning, which
can be used as evidence in a civil case.
Question 2
Marked out of 1.00
, Flag question
Question text
In the case of a residuary clause, our courts must determine …
A.
what the English law currently states.
B.
what the Roman-Dutch law stated immediately before South
Africa became a Republic in 1961.
C.
what the English law stated immediately before South Africa
became a Republic in 1961.
D.
what the English law stated immediately before the Constitution
of the Republic of South African came into force in 1996.
The correct answer is:
B. what the Roman-Dutch law stated immediately before
South Africa became a Republic in 1961.
Here's the explanation:
In South African law, the residuary clause refers to a provision
in a will that deals with any property or assets that are not
specifically mentioned in the will. When interpreting such
clauses, South African courts rely on the legal tradition that
existed immediately before South Africa became a Republic
in 1961, which was the Roman-Dutch law.
Roman-Dutch law, which evolved from the Dutch legal system,
was the primary source of law in South Africa before it became
