shaunadennyham wrote: » Adding to this isn’t there something about if the offer was completely outrageously low it’s less likely to be upheld - the case about the printers being sold for a really low price due to misprint? I could be wrong
illy.m wrote: » Very stupid question here, but my brain is boiling already. What's the difference between mandatory interlocutory injunction and interlocutory injunction? How do you spot the difference in the exam?
SKLaw wrote: » I’m not sure if my approach is right to this but I’m open to correction. I think it counts as acceptance since according to Thomas v BPE Solicitors and provisions under Electronic Commerce Act 2000, the email is taken as received if it has been sent during working hours (assuming she placed the order during office hours). You can also argue that since acceptance must be communicated then the principles in Entores can be applied. The automatic email could imply that a reasonable person would assume that their order has been received and accepted. There’s also The Brimnes case. Don’t get too bogged down on the offer and acceptance principles though. Talk about unilateral mistake too. I think the examiner report for it said that some students focused only on the offer and acceptance part of it. Hope that helps!
arubamuuu wrote: » Contract Can anyone clarify what happens when there is an automatic email? For example in Oct 2018 Q1 with Paula buying the playstation online and getting the automatic email saying it was accepted. Is this proper acceptance or what cases/legislation say that it isn't?
FE1RL wrote: » Hi all! First time attempting these exams I’ve got some notes from fe1 manuals and the likes but I keep gravitating towards my 3rd level notes as I just find them more concise and easier to digest. (Equity mainly) Is this naive on my part? Are there fe1 manuals and such for a reason? Ie. College notes are not sufficient? Thanks and best of luck to everyone with exams left.
jackwoodson wrote: » Just want to say thanks for the support here everyone, great thread, just tremendous, no other thread has been better, people always tell me how great this thread is. I have a constitutional grid up to Spring 2015, does anyone have a more up to date one, even to 2018 or whatever? I have lots of material/grids for prop, contract, equit, const, company, and tort myself if anyone need something please do pm.
Shonagoring123 wrote: » For contract does anyone know of the following topics are sufficient? -offer & acceptance -consideration -certainty -estoppel -privity -terms - express/implied and interpretation of a contract -consumer protection -exemption clauses -mistake -misrepresentation -discharge and -remedies
sunnylegal wrote: » Anyone able to rank the injunctions you should learn off in terms of importance/how likely they are to turn upon paper
Lozg wrote: » Currently struggling with equity and haven’t done the other three yet so I’m scared for what is to come hahaha
fe12020oct wrote: » anyone know the average pass rate for constitutional in the past?
baloo21 wrote: » Lingham v HSE - Updated the first part of the test. Need at least a strong case Also - the Merck, Sharpe & Dohme recent case has changed the test in that it now incorporates the adequacy of damages into the balance of convenience assessment
bluerthanu wrote: » You’re completely correct, mea culpa. If anything, it is likely to come up twice in a lot years. Didn’t feature in my head because I decided not to do it.
Debarramike137 wrote: » For Equity, Can someone tell me please, what case for mandatory replaces the Campus Oil test? Thanks a lot!
ruby1998 wrote: » I think a charitable gift initially fails for example in a situation where the donor leaves a gift to a charity that never existed or a charity that existed at the time of making the will but is subsequently wound up before the donor dies. Basically, there was never a chance of it being able to be applied to the original charitable purpose!
nicolesd wrote: » Anyone have any advice in answering charitable q which includes the Cypres doctrine? how to spot if she wants us to talk about cypres? also in regard to cypres only applying to a valid charitable trust which fails can anyone explain why the valid charitable trust initially fails? (feel really stupid asking this but i want to be clear)
bluerthanu wrote: » From my cursory understanding there’s about four seemingly guaranteed questions from three categories of topics: (1) one question on injunctions (my guess this year will probably be quia timet or mandatory?); (2) one question on charitable trusts (plus purpose and cyprès in either here or below at part c); and (3) two questions from either undue influence, estoppel, or specific performance (with rectification). My speculation would be probably undue influence and specific performance this year. That’s what I can make out from the topics as being bankers anyway. There then seems to be at least another four general categories of questions from where we’d likely get our fifth question: (a) either resulting or constructive trusts (sometimes the former is mixed with another topic as in March I think with secret trusts?); (b) trusteeship and/or tracing (either in a question or as a note, the latter seemingly almost every second year so perhaps due an appearance on Tuesday); (c) a note style question (the most common I can see are the Rules in Strong v Bird and Hastings-Bass [more often than not those two appear together], satisfaction/election/, unilateral mistake or something from charitable trusts); and (d) express trusts (DMC, secret trusts, and 3 certainties, the latter of which hasn’t appeared in 3 years). For my own part I’ll be doing all the topics from what are hopefully the four guaranteed questions and then (c) and (d) from the second category, which will hopefully be enough. Of course, this is just my own analysis of the trends but I think they all hold true. Best of luck everyone!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
