law987 wrote: » Flip I missed the politics part of that Q completely so ahaha, what did it say
fe12020oct wrote: » I said it was still valid as per mills v shields & kelly where they applied Wilkes v allington !! Could be so wrong though
FE1_2020_ wrote: » What were people's opinion in regards to the DMC question on Jane assisting Betty with her suicide ? I mentioned the Agnew Belfast Banking Case and followed up that suicide is no longer a criminal offence in Ireland. Is a DMC still valid if the person claiming it actually assisted with the suicide ?
AA247 wrote: » It was Mary that helped her commit suicide. Assisted suicide is still a criminal offence as far as I’m aware but it was Mary not Jane so I went with it was all good ... but not 100%
ruby1998 wrote: » So confused what to do for this because it was 101 and 102 in August then 102 and mergers came up in August online, my notes are **** for 106 and I haven't done state aid very well
FE1_2020_ wrote: » I knew there was a further issue to be teased out there, luckily I just didn't elaborate on the assistance part so not sure if I will loose marks as you said it was Mary anyway who actually assisted with the suicide. Obviously more mars will be given for those who teased that part out and made that distinction. But overall the key issue is it still was a valid DMC in favor of Jane. Thanks for clarifying that it was Mary.
Spreece wrote: » Not sure it was. Didn't the box remain in Betty's house among Betty's belongings?
nicolesd wrote: » We're the charitable trusts invalid due to pure sport or what did people say? I ran out of time and only got some cases down for objects hoping I manage a pass did the rest OKish qs
FE1new wrote: » I said first one would fail for purely sport under benefit if community but as it was up to executor what to do if it was given for education as in physical activity facilities it would pass Second would fail as it is promotion of sport and there was also a question of public benefit. Third would fail as its political. Not sure if any of that is right by the way. I really didn't want sports.
ruby1998 wrote: » I said same except said 1st one could be charitable under s. 3.11 a/b benefit to locality and the case of Shillington v Portadown where there was a gift to some urban council to provide for some form of recreation for residents of something like that.
T.Chunter164 wrote: » Wasn’t there a case where if the reform is directly linked to the aims of trusts it allowed? In retaliation to the amnesty decision
FE1_2020_ wrote: » I argued in favor that both bequests for sport would qualify as charitable status. For the first one I mentioned that Delany suggested that trusts for sport would be likely be upheld in this jurisdiction if there were linked with some form of recreational facilities, I then argued that the executor should ensure not to limit or restrict any particular class of persons who may benefit from these facilities in accordance with section 3(8) in order to satisfy the public benefit requirement and said that this would also aid in the community wellbeing under section 3(11). For the second, I mentioned that the sum of monies directed towards the provision of sports ground would likely be held a charitable as it would satisfy 3(11) in terms of development of rural community and that again brought in Delany's comments as stated above. I also did mention then if it were to fail under this category that it may be possibly afforded charitable status under the second for the advancement of education and citing Magee v AG where the court said "education simply requires something that contributes to the betterment of people, even if not in the classroom setting' and then cited physcial education etc.
JayFE1 wrote: » I know it’s a bit late in the day but this has peaked my interest. In Simpson v Gov of Mountjoy, he got 7.5k for having to slop out while in the joy however the case was decided along the lines of privacy. Contrast that with State (Richardson) v Gov of Mountjoy where it was held that such a practice in prison would breach ones right to bodily integrity. I haven’t time to read judgments in full but maybe someone else has wondered this and knows why? Surely, bodily integrity is the strongest Art 40.3 right especially when compared with privacy. Anybody?
Jenosul wrote: » I also said it would benefit the community. I hope I am right! I mentioned coughlan case and said that it would help the rural community. I am worried now I am wrong.
Fe1new4 wrote: » From my understanding Simpson was decided that way because he had a cell-mate therefore in cell sanitation without a privacy screen with him there too was why it’s a breach of privacy. That’s my take anyway
Lawlaw12 wrote: » Constitutional Does anyone know if the Ellis case has been asked since it was decided?
DUMSURFER wrote: » For a question on auctions "without reserve" that went like this: "Aoife bids €200 for a Waterford crystal chandelier owned by Tom. Although the chandelier is advertised as “without reserve” it is withdrawn from the auction when hers is the only bid. Kelly, the auctioneer, is acting on Tom’s instructions. Two years later, Aoife reads that the chandelier has been sold for €40,000. She wishes to sue Tom for breach of contract" The Griffith Sample Answers came to this conclusion: "It appears that Aoife was relying on an advertisement in relation to the chandelier and therefore this is merely an invitation to treat, she made an offer by bidding but there was no acceptance by the auctioneer or by Tom and accordingly she cannot sue for breach of contract as she does not have a contract in the first place." I'm sure this is wrong and an action can be brought against the auctioneer as its a unilateral offer to the highest bidder. But could someone put my mind at ease or perhaps enlighten me before it's too late!
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » What are people cramming for Constitutional and cutting for Constitutional? I'm rolling the dice on independence of the judiciary, cabinet confidentiality and international relations for SOP. Covering Trial In Due Course of Law also. Then focusing on Referenda, AG/Pres/Interpretation/Natural Law, Freedom of Expression, Association, Assembly, Equality, Religion, Fair Procedures (Duty To Give Reasons), Right To Life of The Born and Refusal of Medical Treatment. Will that be enough?
Jeremiah25 wrote: » Looks good! Would include liberty also if you can, topical!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
