Robbie25808 wrote: » Great, thanks for that. I have all of the cases I am just unfamiliar on how to actually answer it is all. So should i focus on the cases of American Cynamid, Campus Oil, Westman Holdings v McCormack, Templeville Developments v Leopardstown golf club, AIB v Diamond. Talk about how for those, the first limb of the test is 'is there a fair bona fide question to be tried? Then go onto explain in mandatory interloc injunction, that they drop the first limb of the test and you need a strong and clear case. Talk about Shepard Homes, Lingham, etc. Also, do you know if we have to talk about quia timet injunctions for this also? As in Szabo they mention that for quia timet mandatory use Lingham. Does that mean we have to discuss the topic of quia timet injunctions? Thanks for all your help
LawGuy2016 wrote: » Hullabaloo, thank you so much for replying. I just looked at the exam report for the October 2016 exam and it says: "A retention of title clause that does not attempt to attach to the proceeds of sale or manufactured goods - what is often called a simple retention of title clause - does not create a charge and has not been affected by the Act." Therefore, presumably, I am correct in saying a simple retention of title clause and all sums due clauses do not require registration. Whilst (1) Proceesds of Sale Clauses, (2) Aggregation Clauses require registration.
Robbie25808 wrote: » Hey can anyone help me with this really stuck: Sean, who died recently, was a life-long member of the Irish Athletic Association, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of certain amateur sports. He devoted much of his free time to the activities of the organisation, both as a player and official, for many years of his long life. His love of sport and of the Association are reflected in a number of legacies in his Will which are bequeathed to his executor on trust for a number of distinct purposes. In the first bequest, Sean has directed that the sum of €2,000,000 ought to be used by the executor in such manner as he sees fit to promote the playing. of football in rural communities. In the second bequest, Sean directed that the sum of €1,000,000 ought to be used by the executor to ensure the provision of playing fields in Sean's home town. Finally, he has bequeathed the sum of €100,000 to his executor for the purpose of organising a campaign to promote the introduction of legislation criminalising certain conduct on the· playing pitch, such as remonstrating with referees. Consider whether the above bequests constitute valid charitable trusts. Support your answer by reference to relevant case law and statutory provisions. So in relation to this question, the first 2 would fail as they are sports (National Tourism Development Authority v Coughlan). However, while this act claims they fail because of sport could you argue that they promote health under the 2009 act? Also, will the last 100,000 fail as it is too vague? Finally, how would the doctrine of cy pres apply here or would it? Thanks
Robbie25808 wrote: » Another question in relaiton to this one: Last year, John and Brian reached an agreement to the effect that John would sell his interest in a parcel of land to Brian for €300,000. While it was John's intention to exclude one particularly valuable site from the deal, he never communicated this to Brian and that site was included in the contract when their agreement was recorded in writing. Subsequently, John realised the mistake and sought rectification of the contract to exclude this valuable site. Brian wishes to secure the entirety of the lands and so has counterclaimed for specific performance of the contract. John has argued in his defence to the counterclaim that the contract ought not to be specifically performed because of the mistake regarding the inclusion of the valuable site. He has also argued that, as land prices have increased significantly in the past year, it would impose an unfair and unnecessary hardship upon him if specific performance of the contract was granted. Advise John about his prospects of obtaining rectification of the contract. Advise Brian about the likely response of the Court to his counterclaim for specific performance and of John's potential defences to it. I understand its a unilateral mistake, no sharp practice so wont get recitification. In relation to SP, do you just mention that there needs to be a concluded agreement and must be a note/memo? In relation to defences, are the only defences hardship and mistake which he will fail for?
Lindyloo 1 wrote: » Would it be very foolish to leave out trusteeship? The tiredness is a killer!
Supermax1988 wrote: » It's come up 9 times in the last 12 papers so I think there's a pretty good chance we'll get a question on it. Have you looked at it at all before? You'd get a good grasp on it in an hour if you set your mind to it. Focus on the retirement/removal of trustees and then the duties (in particular duty not to profit, duty to exercise discretion properly and duty to invest)
monroe89 wrote: » Would I get away with leaving out rescission...? It's like a roadblock in my brain
laurenburne wrote: » I hate those topics that you just dont want to go near for some reason. Recission isnt the worst. Maybe have a quick glance...or a quick read of nutshells if your feeling overwhelmed with information at this stage. Aways good to have a bit of an idea just in case. Answering the five questions gets alot of people I think. A reasonable attempt is much better than nothing at all
laurenburne wrote: » On a different note...it looks like the red cow hotel got revamped. The rooms look very glam and modern in the pictures on booking.com. I so far have 7 out of the eight exams passed. You think I would feel confident at this stage about what it is you need to do to pass. I feel all over the place with study. The stress is kicking in big time. Does anyone know did economic loss or Defamation come up on the last Tort paper?
Lindyloo 1 wrote: » Defamation was on the last paper. Pure economic loss last appeared Sept 2014.
Robbie25808 wrote: » What is the outcome if the gift to John to hold on trust fails? Will he take it beneficially? If the gift to Brian fails will he also take it beneficially? And finally what is the relevance of the residuary clause?
Redo91 wrote: » I just have two quick questions regarding company law. 1) in relation to registration of charges my manual says that where the requirements of registration are not complied with "the company remains liable for the debt to the lender, but he will be classified as an unsecured creditor and the rule in pari passu apply". However a few pages later it states that if a charge isn't registered within 21 days "it automatically becomes void, and the debt it secures becomes payable instantly". What's the difference between these two scenarios as to me it seems like a contradiction.
2) If a 3rd party is aware that Company is acting ultra vires and contracts with them regardless, can the transaction still be enforced as the 2014 Act prevents the company's articles from being enforced to invalidate any transaction?
annmc882 wrote: » def is 50/50 chance I think E Loss is higher chance coming up
hullaballoo wrote: » The "it automatically becomes void" refers to the charge, not the debt. So, the company is still liable for the debt as per the first-quoted section but the voidance of the security (the charge) means that the debt falls due on the failure of the security as an unsecured debt. Does that clarify or muddy things? Happy to try and explain further. This is exactly the type of scenario I was rambling on about a few pages back in relation to the UV rule. It would imo depend on the full facts of the case but if a stakeholder - a member or creditor of the company - is injured by the UV acts then I believe they must be able to sue for relief, even retrospectively, to avoid the transaction for being beyond the Company's capacity and UV. This is my opinion on it and I am not an examiner and I do not know whether the examiner agrees with this. I would hope that such an argument would be seen at a minimum as a valid viewpoint. I base my rationale for believing that UV still has a role to play here on the fact that Company Law is an emanation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. In other words, it is based in what you people call Equity. As such, you could conceivably rely on a straight up Maxim of Equity like, "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands" or "Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud" (or any number of the others!) to bolster the proposition that a party who knows that a company does not have corporate capacity to transact with them cannot benefit from that transaction to the detriment of another interested party.
Redo91 wrote: » So when it says the debt becomes payable "instantly" it' means the same thing as the first scenario except it's worded differently?
Ah ok now I see the problem with it! In the exam if faced with such a scenario in a problem question would the safest bet just be to apply the 2014 Act literally and say the transaction can't be set aside?
Also my manual says that when a decision is made that a company is insolvent the directors must convene a board members' meeting and a creditors meeting and put a full statement of affairs before each under S 569. This appears to be wrong. Do you mind telling me what the correct section is? Thanks again for all your help. I don't think I've ever been this indebted to someone that I've never met!
laurenburne wrote: » Thanks a mil. So far top runners for me in tort are: Economic loss Standard of care Causation essay perhaps Nervous shock Vicarious liability Role of consent in intentional torts maybe Liability for animals Medical negligence Limitations Damages Rylands Trespass to land
