20082014 wrote: » TORT Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam? Defamation Res Ipsa Loquiter Animal and Fire I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)
Jeremiah25 wrote: » Are we covering tracing or prop estoppel?
lawstudentirl wrote: » In the Irish case of Mills v. Shields and Kelly (1948) the DMC was valid even though the guy committed suicide.
CiaranS93 wrote: » Both came up last sitting. Can't see tracing coming up again but so short probably worth covering. I'm going with: Mareva Purpose 3 Certainties DMC Undue influence Trustees duties Estoppel Tracing In that order
supercreative wrote: » That was because he wasn't contemplating suicide though I believe, if the gift is made in contemplation of death by suicide and then the suicide occurs it would be contrary to the old case-law (Agnew). As others have said, this would probably be decided differently now, but people should bear in mind that assisted suicide has come up in the DMC question occasionally and Fleming v Ireland would be a good one to cite for that to point out that assisted suicide isn't legal (also s2(2) Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993).
Jeremiah25 wrote: » No secret/resulting trusts?
CiaranS93 wrote: » Nope. Willing to take a gamble as I find it hard to distinguish between them. The trust side is painful where the equity side is slightly more understand able in my opinion anyways. On another note, city colleges sample answer for UI don't mention manifest disadvantage anywhere, can this be left out?
Rainbow25 wrote: » I was planning to leave out defamation and employer's liability but cover the rest!
ihatethesea wrote: » Does anybody have an EU grid? I have grids in contract, property, equity and criminal if anyone is stuck?
iamanengine wrote: » Link to info on the Merck Sharpe and Dohme case - https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2019/07/31/supreme-court-rules-on-preliminary-injunction-test Adequacy of damages is to be considered as part of the balance of convenience "Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that "the preferable approach is to consider the adequacy of damages as part of the balance of convenience" assessment rather than a hurdle prior to that assessment. The adequacy of damages will continue to be "the most important component" of the balancing exercise. However, availability of damages will not be decisive, particularly where difficulty in calculation makes it likely that any damages awarded will not be a precise and perfect remedy."
CiaranS93 wrote: » So the test now is: Bona fide case to be tried and balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages)? And not adequacy of damages as a separate point?
iamanengine wrote: » Yeah I believe that is the case. Is it just UI that comes up under Rescission? Mistake and Misrep seems more Contract-y. My grid doesn't even have Rescission on it, it just has UI
Jeremiah25 wrote: » Hastings & Bass was up last sitting wasn't it? Strong vs. Bird too?
nmurphy1441 wrote: » They did! Satisfaction could be a good one to know this time around
iamanengine wrote: » PM me your email
DUMSURFER wrote: » Any chance I could get in on this as well? Lost my LTD v DAC notes and only realized the other day and only have enough on SAP for my 5 reforms essay
Law1997 wrote: » Also what in God’s name is an innominate term?! My notes just say it’s not preclassified? Is it.. where the parties haven’t said it’s a condition or a warranty, and in order to determine what it is, the courts look at the effect of its breach on the innocent party? And Hong Kong Firs held that if it deprives the innocent party of the fundamental thing he contracted for, it’s a condition?
iamanengine wrote: » Yeah you're right, C determine whether it is a condition or warranty once breached based on seriousness of the consequences, fundamental breach = condition
Law1997 wrote: » Contract law Can anyone explain then tenders part of offer and acceptance when it says it will accept the lowest bid offered? I’m very confused - also confused about privilege clauses that they don’t have to accept any bid.
JimmyJazzz wrote: » Think of the tender process as an auction by writing. An invitor essentially says 'make me an offer' and prospective contractors submit bids (or 'tenders'). If the invite is for services the lowest bid offered is most desirable to the invitor (imagine a county council looking to have a playground built for the lowest price). If the invitor is selling something the highest bid would be preferable. Tenders are invitations to treat but an invitor can ensure that they're taken as such by including a privilege clause ie a statement in the invite that they're not obliged to accept any bid in particular.
