Okay... I'd like to break down why this module was terrible with four main reasons: the lecture material, the tutors, the summative essay, and the content of the module. Before I get into it, I would like to stress that the delivery of the lectures was actually quite good - the lecturer for 2016/17 was competent, she clearly knew what she was talking about and she was helpful when asking questions.
The lecture material was very unhelpful. By this I mean the handouts and the slides that are posted onto DUO. The handout and the slides did not correlate and made it unnecessarily complicated. I often had to ask a lot of questions because the foundation knowledge just wasn't accessible given that the slides were so complex. For example, the handout would set out what the lecture covered but the slides would jump around the handout, often stressing seemingly unimportant cases. I was quite ill for a lot of this year but did my best to attend as many lectures as possible. However, trying to catch up was made near impossible given the unnecessarily complex lecture materials which were incredibly difficult to follow.
The tutors were awful. I loved my tutor as a person but she was an awful teacher - I don't think she knew anything about commercial law if I'm honest. I emailed her on two separate occasions throughout the year. The first time, she provided me with an answer that simply did not make sense. The second time, she didn't know the answer and said that I should email the lecturer (to be fair, it was about exam technique - but one would imagine that for 9,000 a year the tutors know how we should be answering exam questions given that they are teaching us...). The tutorials were structured well but the teaching style and discussion was not of a good quality. I heard this complaint from other students.
The summative essay... Where do I start?! Let me set the scene for you... They introduced this summative essay which counted for 20% of the module last year. They have now dropped it after two years of trying to get it right. The exercise simply didn't work. You had to draft a retention of title clause and then various other clauses which would allow the clause to function properly in a commercial context. You then had to write roughly 1000 words on why you have drafted it in the way that you did. Now, I got 48 in this. I'm a fairly decent student. I got a first in a 5,000 word essay and a high 2.1 in another 3000 word essay this year. I do not understand where I went wrong and the feedback suggested that I should have gotten at least a 2.2. The marks were random and sporadic, with very similar essays receiving marks in the high 60s. I'm by no means bitter, but it was just a shambles from start to finish. We had a whole tutorial dedicated to this summative and that provided us with very little knowledge.
Finally, the content of the module. As you have probably read from previous reviews, this module's SOLE CONCERN is the SGA 1979. It's SO boring. I loved contract law last year so I was really looking forward to this module, but it is so useless. You simply look at a different provision of the SGA in each year. Weeks 6 and 7 were literally spent looking at Section 6 and Section 7. If you are taking commercial law next year because it will look good on a CV - DO NOT TAKE COMMERCIAL LAW NEXT YEAR. Take PIL or Media Law. They are so much more interesting and this module was, without a doubt, the worst thing to come out of my academic life at university.