iamanengine wrote: » This is what I think came up anyway Q1 Exclusion Clause/Consumer Protection - S.14 Q2 Promissory Estoppel/Implied Terms - Business Efficacy Test Q3 Misrep, I think, didn’t do this Q4 Undue Influence, I think, didn’t do this Q5 Damages - Mitigation Q6 Breach - Anticipatory, repudiatory and innominate terms Q7 Privity Q8 a. Construction of Terms - I answered on factual matrix test and mentioned parol evidence b. Not sure what this is Would appreciate input here as I’m hoping I answered on the correct topics!!
SwD wrote: » Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.
LawGirl3434 wrote: » ahhhhhFE1s wrote: » holliek wrote: » This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge. I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this! This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than taxInternal Taxation: If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30. ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]: ○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate. ○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and ○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products. Thanks so much for this. Just to say my notes for SARL Denkavit Lawrie v France say it was held to be a 30 breach, because didn’t apply to imports and exports the same? This is the animal slaughter one, in denkavit v min for agriculture I have that was a 110? Maybe my notes are wrong
ahhhhhFE1s wrote: » holliek wrote: » This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge. I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this! This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than taxInternal Taxation: If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30. ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]: ○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate. ○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and ○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products.
holliek wrote: » This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge. I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this!
EmmaO94 wrote: » That Contract paper caught me totally off guard Was so ready for a nice juicy q on mistake, did not bank on misrep making a reappearance at all. Anyone else feel a bit shellshocked?
LawGirl3434 wrote: » Could anyone explain art 30 and art 110 to me in very basic English? In a problem Q, if he specifically says it is a tax - do you then presume it forms part of the internal taxation system and just start talking about 110(2) and and 110(1)? If he calls it a charge, do you go through cases that set out test if forms part of internal taxation scheme? Also - the test for art 30 and 110 seems to be the same? Imports and exports (or is that only for 110?), sake marketing stage and chargable event the same Any help much appreciated so confused!
