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!
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?
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!
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
SwD wrote: » Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.
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!!
niamh1612 wrote: » Am I right in saying the only element of offer and acceptance was auction without reserve? Really strange paper, my last out of the magic three and almost definitely failed, answered 3 good and then half of two questions. Very disappointing.
Daly29 wrote: » Suppose at a stretch you could say there was offer/acceptance to be looked at re the no signature and emailed agreement in Q1.... Was happy until I somehow noticed that I read the limitation clause as not affecting statutory obligation. Ugh, saw covered statutory warranty and made an obvious mistake. Hope he goes easy on that mistake. Only had undue influence for the old dude and the guarantee. Said the bank should have red flagged it because of the manifest disadvantage, thought that wasn't the worst approach. Anyway , one more to go.
niamh1612 wrote: » God I talked about unfair terms! For q 1 didn't even think of offer! I had unilateral mistake for the old guy BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME couldn't think of the term non est factum. Good luck the end is near!!
Daly29 wrote: » It was a small part of the Q in fairness, the offer/acceptance part... I wrote "not what I signed up to" in kind of fancy handwriting to try to make it look a bit Latin :-) answer was basically saying the deal should never have happened regardless because the bank should have called him in or got him legal advice so kept banging on that.
SwD wrote: » My main focus was mistake on the basis he thought it was a petition. I think there could be two plausible answers here depending on the approach.
EmmaO94 wrote: » Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow. Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?
Daly29 wrote: » My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do. Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?
Breacnua wrote: » Maybe they are, I don’t know. Someone mentioned it on here few weeks ago. The only way it’s going is because they must be getting hammered for it and have to make changes. It’s going to be a long 6 weeks.
iamanengine wrote: » What date do results come out? Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!
Daly29 wrote: » Around November 30th, there are therabouts. I dread opening that. 3 very marginal, 1 fail so far. If I can turn tomorrow to 4 marginals I'll be very happy. So many hours done. A rake of fails would be hard to swallow after all this.
JohnsKite wrote: » what do ye fine people think was the least popular question on today's contract paper?
