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.
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?
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!
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?
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
nicolesd wrote: » anyone have concise notes on defences for SP? was going to leave them out but i probably shouldn't..or what's the most important ones?
fe1fi20 wrote: » Equity Are the following okay? - specific performance - rectification - quia timet injunctions - mandatory interlocutory injunctions - DMC - strong v bird - three certainties - charitable trusts - cy pres - trustee - resulting trusts Not going to focus too much on the last two but have enough knowledge to write something down
tommytimber wrote: » I'm thinking the same except I'll leave out resulting trusts. Is it crazy if I leave out specific performance too?
Fe123 wrote: » I only have time to do one more , estoppel or mistake for contract. Any suggestions
Supermax1988 wrote: » Definitely Mistake
gmh44 wrote: » Hi, does anyone have the 2020 constit law gird to share please. Any suggestions on which to leave out, out of methods of interruption, amending the constitution or effects of findings unconst. Thanks!
FE1Nov20 wrote: » Equity Could someone please clarify whether campus oil principles also apply to quia timet injunctions? My understanding is that they do apply with the additional proof required of actual and real danger - is this correct?
