Normal
Hey [USER=3747]@thirdtimelucky[/USER],I would be interested (if you felt comfortable discussing it!) how you responded to these? The first, third and fourth are particularly difficult I think.I was asked the second one in one of my interviews (HSF I think). The way I dealt with it was to think about the general considerations/concerns that might be relevant in the scenario (i.e., major risks or contingencies that your client would want to protect against) and to suggest that a clause related to them would be advisable.Essentially, I think it is important not to think that your interviewer will be looking for an answer that is wrapped up in legal terminology (especially as a non-law student), but to demonstrate that you are able to consider, in general terms, what might be worth protecting against/explicitly providing for in the contract. I hope that makes some sense!
Hey [USER=3747]@thirdtimelucky[/USER],
I would be interested (if you felt comfortable discussing it!) how you responded to these? The first, third and fourth are particularly difficult I think.
I was asked the second one in one of my interviews (HSF I think). The way I dealt with it was to think about the general considerations/concerns that might be relevant in the scenario (i.e., major risks or contingencies that your client would want to protect against) and to suggest that a clause related to them would be advisable.
Essentially, I think it is important not to think that your interviewer will be looking for an answer that is wrapped up in legal terminology (especially as a non-law student), but to demonstrate that you are able to consider, in general terms, what might be worth protecting against/explicitly providing for in the contract. I hope that makes some sense!
