nmurphy1441 wrote: » Don’t have any notes in front of me but maybe Copeland v Greenhalf??? And Maybe regency villas v diamond resorts!!!???
ullaw22 wrote: » Thanks! Definitely they're applicable in some form... Q is from 2013 so hoping it's been too long for it to crop up again but honestly not a notion how you'd go about answering it. I'd imagine there's been an easement case at some point sometime about a right to a view but if there is I cannot find it.
AlexTG356 wrote: » For those of you who got logged out yesterday, when you logged back in were your previous answers still viewable or were they gone but saved?
caius97 wrote: » Folks, what are people covering for Tort? Absolute mammoth of a course, starting to panic! I'm thinking about covering: 1. DOC/Causation/Breach 2. Standard of care 3. Negligence - general 4. Negligence misstatement/professional negligence 5. Defamation 6. Products liability 7. Res Ipsa 8. Nuisance 9. Employers and vicarious liability Would this cover me? Am I missing anything huge?
Iso_123 wrote: » equity I would appreciate an opinion from someone on this Q, it's a part of question 2 on the march 2020 paper re trustees: Anne also bequeathed €100,000 to Bridget and Clare on trust for her eldest child for life and thereafter to her eldest grandchild. The Will provided that the two trustees shall have an absolute discretion in relation to the investment of those monies. Bridget is a committed environmentalist and decides, without discussing the matter with Clare, to invest the monies in a fledgling cosmetics company that makes its products primarily from compost. Unfortunately, Bridget failed to research the potential for, and likelihood of, economic growth of these investments and the company performs very poorly, making considerable losses before going into liquidation. Advise the beneficiaries Would you talk about the rule in Hastings v Bass here as well as the cases on a trustees duty to invest?
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Right to light can be argued under s3 prescription act 1858... Right to a view has been held not to be an easement as it is too vague in Phipps v Pear!!
ullaw22 wrote: » Ah okay! That's such a huge help, thank you thank you!
fe12020grad wrote: » Someone correct me if I'm wrong but personally I think you would have more than enough cases under duties in relation to investment, you've got the types of investments authorized/ discretion in relation to investment, liability for breach and cases on ethical investment to cover pretty much all the issues. So I can't see how Hastings Bass would be too relevant here and would probably take up too much time.
Lealaw wrote: » How I would take it, if the answer / part of the answer is not there when you log back in it is gone. Only what you see will be saved. I would notify the Law Society if you notice any issues with missing parts on logging back in.
Iso_123 wrote: » Thanks for this! I was thinking the same ie that the cases on discretion re investments, the standard of care needed and breach cases would take up a fair bit of time so probably no time for hastings and bass. the only thing that threw me is the way the examiner says that she failed to research the potential of growth for these companies so i thought that was maybe a prompt for hastings v bass as she didn't take into account all relevant considerations can I just ask as well what cases you have on ethical investments? I dont have anything for this in my notes. Thanks!
arubamuuu wrote: » Is Equity showing up as an upcoming exam for anyone? I remember from the last sitting I could see all my upcoming exams a few days in advance but now it says I have no upcoming exams so I'm not sure if I should be contacting the LS.
Zlatorog wrote: » I have two for this: Cowan v Scargill - Some of the Trustees had been appointed by the National Union of Miners and they rejected a planned investment scheme where it increased overseas investments and investments in energies in competition with coal. The Court held that they couldn't take these considerations into regard but had a duty to get the best financial return. Harries v Chrurch Commissioners for England - Trustees argued that if they were representing the Christian faith in England they should not invest in a manner opposing those aims. The Court again found that moral/ethical concerns should have no impact but rather the best financial return for the Beneficiary. They said if there was no monetary difference between two investments, then the Trustees could pick the ethical one.
tommytimber wrote: » Tort Are people covering Rylands v Fletcher for Tort?
EmmaO94 wrote: » You're so welcome! I found the seminar helpful & hopefully very telling!Will eat my hat if there isn't a q on Friends...
Dropin wrote: » Anyone find that when they finish an answer they have a feeling of relative satisfaction only to review the question and see how small it looks in that question box?
Dropin wrote: » Was the Protest question your standard Expression , Assembly and Association ?
