QUESTION 1

(Boys "J5" vs. Pastor Letisha and Prosperity Church International)

Brief:

(a) Justifying the Action of the Individual Church Members:

Jurisprudentially, the doctrine of consent and autonomy in contract law (linked to cognitive success
and contractualism) requires that services be accepted knowingly.

Members did not consent to have their cars washed; thus, expecting them to pay is a violation of the
consensual principle.

Epistemic Harm: As explained (Ashby v. White), any imposition without clear knowledge causes an
epistemic wrong.

Legal Positivism: Obligations arise through properly formed agreements, not moral obligations alone.

(b) Justifying the Action of the Boys ("J5"):

Consequentialism: The boys provided a valuable service with positive outcomes (clean cars,
empowering homeless youths).

Cognitive Success: They identified a demand (clean cars during the conference) and provided a
functional solution.

Contractualism: Even though no express contract existed, an implied contract could arguably be
formed from benefit received.

Retributive Justice: Fairness demands that those who received the benefit pay proportionally.

Conclusion:
Both parties can be justified depending on whether focus is placed on consent (church members) or
consequentialist benefit (boys).

QUESTION 2
(Jane's Abortion, Bodily Autonomy, and Rhodes Scholarship)

Brief:

Justifying the Argument of the Trio (Jane, Judy, and Rosemary):

Bodily Autonomy:

From a deontological perspective, individuals have rights over their bodies (duty to self-determination
regardless of consequences).

Daily v. Pick illustrates that property rights are protected even when public interest suggests
otherwise; by analogy, body rights are even more fundamental.

Cognitive Success and Moral Demand:

The law ought to protect the creation and choices of the mind when it meets a real, functional
demand (Jane's education and career).

There was a moral demand to secure her future and contribute meaningfully to society.

Consequentialism:
Termination was intended to maximize long-term good (Jane becoming a Rhodes Scholar,
contributing to the economy and society).

Epistemic Harm:

The criminalization without considering her intentions can result in epistemic wrong — punishing a
thoughtful choice made under moral stress.

Conclusion:
The trio’s actions can be justified through the lenses of bodily autonomy, cognitive success,
consequentialism, and avoidance of epistemic wrong.

QUESTION 3
(Prostitution, Kitwe CBD, Baby J and John D)

(1) Acquittal of John D:

Justification:

From a legal positivist point of view (Bright v. Birmingham), the law must be applied exactly.

John D was not "offering" sexual services — he was a "consumer," not a "vendor."

Consequentialist argument could support punishing both, but under strict interpretation, only the
seller is liable.

Prospects of Appeal:

Weak: Statute criminalizes offering, not purchasing.

Upholding John's acquittal preserves legal certainty and avoids epistemic wrong.

(2) Conviction of Jane:

Justification:

Jane clearly offered sexual services under the language of the by-law.

Prospects of Appeal:

Low success unless she challenges the constitutional validity of the by-law (e.g., violation of rights to
livelihood, overbroad definitions).

Conclusion:
John D’s acquittal likely to stand; Jane's conviction likely to be upheld unless constitutional arguments
are raised.

QUESTION 4
(Denial of Burial at Embassy Memorial Park)

Brief:

Justifying the Position of the Management of Embassy Memorial Park:

Legal Positivism:

Rules governing burial must be followed procedurally; management must comply with their internal
policies without sentimental bias.
Constitutivism:

The cemetery’s rules aim to maintain the cemetery’s purpose (e.g., specific standards for burial sites),
ensuring long-term institutional stability.

Cognitive Success:

The decision ensures the "environmental fit" of the cemetery's standards — preserving the dignity
and intended character of the site.

Epistemic Integrity:

Arbitrarily allowing Temwani’s burial would violate the predictability and certainty of administrative
procedures.

Conclusion:
The management’s refusal, though harsh emotionally, is philosophically justified through legal
positivism, constitutivism, and cognitive success.

✅ FINAL CHECKLIST (Summary Mapping)

Exam Question Philosophy to Use Key Cases/Concepts

Q1: Car Wash Boys vs Church Contractualism, Consequentialism, Epistemic Harm Ashby v
White, Cognitive Success
Q2: Jane's Abortion Deontology, Consequentialism, Bodily Autonomy Daily v Pick, Moral
Demand
Q3: Baby J and John D Legal Positivism, Consequentialism, Epistemic Integrity Bright v
Birmingham
Q4: Cemetery Denial Legal Positivism, Constitutivism, Cognitive Success Management's
Purpose and Rules
Would you also like me to now create for you a model answer outline (like a high-scoring essay
structure) for each question?
That way, you can see exactly how to start, build, and end your exam answers! 🎯
It will take your preparation to the next level!

You said:
everything above is well written but rewrite it again in a language that can easily be understood by a
baby or a first year law student. define all the words when answering for easy follow through imagine
i have nevr taken law or philosophy so you are explaining these answers to me

ChatGPT said:
Perfect — I understand what you need:
✅ Rewrite everything in very simple, clear language
✅ Define all big words
✅ Explain as if you're new to law or philosophy
✅ Make it flow logically and slowly, almost like teaching.

Let's do it carefully and fully.

📚 EASY-TO-UNDERSTAND JURISPRUDENCE EXAM ANSWERS

📜 QUESTION 1: (Boys "J5" vs Church Members and Pastor)
Situation:
Five boys ("J5") washed cars for a church conference. The pastor forgot to tell church members about
this. After washing, the boys asked to be paid. The church members refused.

Question:

Was it right for the church members to refuse?

Was it right for the boys to demand payment?

(A) Why Church Members Can Refuse to Pay:

🔹 Consent (meaning: "agreeing to something")

In law, before you pay for something, you must agree to it.

Here, the church members did not know about the car wash, so they did not agree to pay.

🔹 Epistemic Harm (meaning: "harm caused by lack of correct information")

Because the members didn’t know, making them pay would be unfair.

Example case: Ashby v White — even small mistakes without consent are wrong.

🔹 Legal Positivism (meaning: "law is about following proper rules")

The law says you must first have a proper agreement (a contract).

No proper agreement here.

(B) Why the Boys Can Ask for Payment:

🔹 Consequentialism (meaning: "judge actions by results")

The boys provided a good result: clean cars.

So it makes sense they should be rewarded.

🔹 Cognitive Success (meaning: "having a good idea that solves a problem")

They saw a need (dirty cars) and solved it (washing them).

Law likes when people act usefully.

🔹 Implied Contract (meaning: "agreement without words but by actions")

Even if no one spoke, because members got a service (clean cars), law can sometimes say there was
an "implied" contract.

✅ Conclusion:

Church members are right because they never agreed.

The boys are also right because they did real work.

It depends if the court focuses on agreement (consent) or benefit received (consequentialism).

📜 QUESTION 2: (Jane’s Abortion and Her Right Over Her Body)

Situation:
Jane got a Rhodes Scholarship but found out she was pregnant. She feared the pregnancy would stop
her studies. She had an abortion with the help of a friend and a nurse. She was later arrested and
sentenced.

Question:

Can we defend Jane and her friends using law and philosophy?

Defending Jane, Judy, and Rosemary:

🔹 Bodily Autonomy (meaning: "your body belongs to you")

Everyone should have the right to decide what happens to their own body.

🔹 Deontology (meaning: "do the right thing no matter the result")

Jane did what she thought was right for herself, even if others disagreed.

Example: Daily v Pick — property rights are very strong, and body rights are even stronger!

🔹 Consequentialism (meaning: "judge actions by results")

If Jane finished her studies, she could have helped society later (economically, academically).

Her abortion was aimed at a positive outcome.

🔹 Moral Demand (meaning: "what society feels is the right thing to do")

Society values education and self-improvement. Jane acted based on a real need.

🔹 Epistemic Wrong (meaning: "punishing someone unfairly because you misunderstand them")

Jane thought deeply and made a hard choice. Punishing her ignores her careful thinking.

✅ Conclusion:

Jane and her friends acted to protect her future and dignity.

Using bodily autonomy, consequentialism, and moral demand, we can defend them strongly.

📜 QUESTION 3: (Prostitution in Kitwe CBD - Baby J and John D)

Situation:
Kitwe Council made a new law: offering sex services is illegal.

Baby J was arrested for offering.

John D (customer) was not charged.

Now both cases are being appealed.

(1) Was it right to free John D?

🔹 Legal Positivism (meaning: "follow law exactly as written")

The law said "offering" sex is the crime, not "buying" it.

John D did not offer, he was just there.

🔹 Consequentialism (meaning: "look at the results")

Maybe punishing both would help reduce the problem, but that's not what the law says.

✅ Answer:

Yes, it was right to free John D because the law only punishes the one offering.

🔹 Chance of appeal winning:

Very low. Law was clear.

(2) Was it right to convict Baby J?

🔹 Offering sexual services is exactly what Baby J did.

So, according to the law, yes the court was right.

🔹 Chance of Baby J winning her appeal:

Low chance, unless she argues that the law is unfair under constitutional rights.

✅ Conclusion:

John D was rightly freed.

Baby J was rightly convicted.

📜 QUESTION 4: (Temwani's Burial at Embassy Memorial Park)

Situation:
Temwani, a great Zambian athlete, died. Her family wanted to bury her at Embassy Memorial Park,
but management said no.

Question:

Was management right to refuse?

Defending the Park Management:

🔹 Legal Positivism (meaning: "rules must be followed")

Cemeteries have rules about who can be buried there.

Management must follow those rules, even if it feels harsh.

🔹 Constitutivism (meaning: "success comes from following purpose")

The park is meant to honor certain types of persons under special conditions.

Allowing exceptions could damage the cemetery’s purpose.

🔹 Cognitive Success (meaning: "good ideas solve real problems")

Keeping rules clear helps the cemetery remain respected and organized.

🔹 Epistemic Integrity (meaning: "being honest and clear in decisions")

If rules are bent, it creates confusion and unfairness.

✅ Conclusion:

Even though it feels unfair, the park was legally correct to follow their rules.

Law supports order and fairness, not just emotions.

FINALLYLL
STYLE ANSWERS

QUESTION 1
(Boys "J5" vs Pastor Letisha and Prosperity Church International)

1.1. Issue

The issue is whether the church members can be forced to pay for car-washing
services they did not explicitly agree to, and whether the boys ("J5") are entitled to
payment despite the absence of a formal agreement.

1.2. Rule

In jurisprudence, the doctrine of consent and autonomy states that for a valid
contract or obligation to arise, there must be a mutual agreement between the
parties. Legal positivism supports that only properly formed agreements create legal
obligations. Furthermore, the concept of epistemic harm explains that if someone is
made to act without clear knowledge, it amounts to a legal wrong, as shown in
Ashby v. White.

1.3. Application to the Church Members

The church members did not give consent to the car wash service. Without consent,
there is no valid agreement requiring them to pay. Applying the concept of epistemic
harm, forcing them to pay would be wrong because they lacked critical information
to make an informed choice. Legal positivism further strengthens their case, as
obligations must be based on clear agreements, not just on moral feelings or
benefits received.

1.4. Application to the Boys ("J5")

From a consequentialist point of view, the boys provided a valuable and positive
service — clean cars and employment for homeless youths. Their actions
demonstrate cognitive success, meaning they identified a real need and provided a
useful solution. Although no express contract existed, contractualism allows for the
recognition of an implied contract based on benefit received. Under retributive
justice, fairness demands that one should not benefit from another’s labor without
compensation.

1.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, both the church members and the boys have strong jurisprudential
arguments. If the court focuses on consent and autonomy, the church members are
right not to pay. However, if the court values outcomes and fairness
(consequentialism), the boys could be justified in claiming payment.

QUESTION 2
(Jane’s Abortion, Bodily Autonomy, and the Rhodes Scholarship)

2.1. Issue

The issue is whether Jane, Judy, and Rosemary’s actions — particularly Jane's
decision to terminate her pregnancy — can be justified legally and morally despite
the criminal charges and convictions they faced.

2.2. Rule

The principle of bodily autonomy states that every individual has the right to make
decisions about their own body without external interference. From a deontological
perspective (duty-based ethics), rights over one's body are fundamental, regardless
of consequences. Consequentialism adds that actions should be judged based on the
goodness of their outcomes. Additionally, cognitive success and moral demand
require that the law protect decisions made to meet real social or personal needs,
like education and personal development.

2.3. Application to Jane’s Situation

Applying the principle of bodily autonomy, Jane had the right to decide what
happens to her own body, including making difficult choices about her pregnancy.
Like property rights in Daily v. Pick, bodily rights must be respected even when there
are wider social concerns. Through the lens of cognitive success, Jane’s decision was
not reckless but thoughtful — aimed at fulfilling a real demand (completing her
education and contributing to society). Under consequentialism, her actions were
directed at achieving a long-term positive outcome.

2.4. Application to Epistemic Harm

The criminalization of Jane’s thoughtful choice can be seen as an epistemic wrong. It

punished her for making a reasoned decision to protect her future opportunities.
Rather than promoting justice, the harsh punishment ignored the full context and
complexity of her situation, resulting in legal harm caused by misunderstanding or
misapplying knowledge about her intentions.

2.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, Jane, Judy, and Rosemary’s actions can be defended based on the
philosophies of bodily autonomy, cognitive success, consequentialism, and the
need to avoid epistemic harm. Their choices were aimed at protecting future dignity
and social contribution, and should be viewed as morally and jurisprudentially
justified.

✅ STRUCTURE Summary:


Each paragraph explains either Issue, Rule, Application, or Conclusion.




Each paragraph is at least 3 lines.




Simple language but uses jurisprudential theory to prove the argument.

Would you also like me to format Question 3 (Baby J and John D) and Question 4
(Temwani’s Burial at Embassy Memorial Park) the same way for you next? 📚
(Paragraph form, minimum 3 lines, with Rules, Issues, Application, Conclusion) — it
will complete your exam notes perfectly! ✅

4o

You said:

yes please , on question 4 focusing on explaining on the fact that a

dead person has no rights at law
ChatGPT said:

Great! Let's continue with the same clear structure — using simple language,
minimum 3 lines per paragraph, focusing especially for Question 4 on explaining
that a dead person has no rights in law.

Here we go:

📚 JURISPRUDENCE EXAM:
PARAGRAPH STYLE
ANSWERS (Continued)

QUESTION 3
(Baby J and John D: Prostitution Case in Kitwe CBD)

3.1. Issue

The main issue is whether the Subordinate Court was correct in freeing John D (the
customer) and convicting Baby J (the sex worker), and what the chances of success
are for both appeals.

3.2. Rule

The new by-law in Kitwe says it is a crime to "offer" sexual services to the public.
According to legal positivism (law must be applied exactly as written), only those
who offer services are guilty. If someone does not fall within the exact wording of
the law, they cannot be punished.
3.3. Application to John D

John D did not "offer" any sexual services. He was simply a customer who was
approached. Under the strict reading of the law (legal positivism), the crime only
covers the one who offers, not the one who receives. Therefore, it was correct for
the court to acquit John D, and the appeal against him is unlikely to succeed.

3.4. Application to Baby J

Baby J clearly offered sexual services, which matches the exact wording of the crime
in the by-law. She therefore committed the offence described in the law. Unless she
argues that the law itself is unconstitutional or unfair, her appeal has very little
chance of success.

3.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Subordinate Court made the correct decisions based on strict
interpretation of the law. John D's acquittal should be upheld, and Baby J's
conviction is likely to stand unless a constitutional challenge is raised.

QUESTION 4
(Temwani’s Burial at Embassy Memorial Park — Focus on Dead Person’s Rights)

4.1. Issue

The issue is whether the Embassy Memorial Park was right in refusing to allow
Temwani to be buried there, and whether dead people have any rights at law that
the court can protect.

4.2. Rule

In law, a dead person has no legal rights. A person’s legal rights (like owning
property or going to court) end at death. However, the law protects the estate (the
dead person’s money and property) and the dignity of the dead through living
people, like family members or executors. This follows the principle of legal
positivism — law must deal with facts, and a dead person is no longer a legal
"person."

4.3. Application to Temwani’s Case

Since Temwani is deceased, she no longer has any personal legal rights to claim
burial at Embassy Memorial Park. The family’s desire to honor her is emotional and
moral but does not create a legal obligation on the cemetery. The management has
rules (perhaps based on qualifications or approvals) that must be respected, and
they are legally allowed to refuse if Temwani did not meet their burial criteria.

4.4. Application of Legal Philosophy

The management’s decision can be justified by legal positivism — following rules as

they are, not based on emotions. Additionally, constitutivism supports the idea that
the cemetery must maintain its standards and future reputation, and bending rules
for one person would weaken its purpose.

4.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, because a dead person has no rights at law, and because Embassy
Memorial Park has to follow its own rules and standards, the refusal to allow
Temwani’s burial is legally justified, even though it may seem emotionally harsh. The
law protects order and fairness, not personal feelings after death.