irishmisile wrote: » Same. Mine was roughly half the length of the other answers. I had a tiny intro, a few paras and a 5 line conclusion just baffling on about how sacred s31 is lol there is not a whole lot of material to cover for it
Jenosul wrote: » Hi everyone. I hope the exams are going well. Can someone please tell me how the answered the question on the judicatory in Constitution. I am feeling a bit anxious that I made a mess of it. Thank you
LeagleEagle747 wrote: » Found company to be mainly a complete rehash of previous exam questions, like the separate legal entity with holdings and subsidiaries, Paul and the cars, Harry, Jackie and Tim or whatever his name was. Hopefully things go well for all of us in terms of results because I cannot face sitting company again.
kayleee123 wrote: » This was the last question I did as I didn't really want to do it so was my worst but I talked about the provisions which stipulate the judiciary is independent, then I went on to look at past cases where interference of the independence of the judiciary was struck down so Sinn Fein Funds case, Maher v AG and State v O'Brien and then looked at instances regarding misconduct of judges so golfgate and that justice Curtin not being removed from his position despite the child pornography.
Fe1user5555 wrote: » I said the same as this! Then a little bit about the sanction like if they were planning on removing judges would the council have the power to do that etc! Just threw anything in in the hopes of scraping a few marks in it
bluerthanu wrote: » Yeah, and that exact question was the sample question that came up for the mock exam on better examinations for setting up a few weeks ago. I thought SLP would come up but thought surely he’d change it. Great either way!
kayleee123 wrote: » Oh thank god, the whole time I was writing it I was like I don't know if this is what you were looking for but this is what you are getting
AA247 wrote: » Can anyone summarise what came up in Company today 1-8 please?
fe1fi20 wrote: » PROPERTY hey guys, does anyone have a sample answer to the 2019 spring paper - particularly the co ownership question? thanks
mcdurh wrote: » What are peoples thoughts on contact? I'm thinking I'll be more than covered if I have Offer/Acceptance, Consideration, Certainty, Terms, Consumer Protection, Exemption Clauses, Illegal Contracts, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Discharge of Contracts and Remedies. I feel as though I may be covering too much there and could trim it down?
Fe1user5555 wrote: » I’m doing this but not doing illegal contracts and doing capacity and privity instead!
mcdurh wrote: » Yeah, it such a pain of a topic as you kind of just have to have 80% of the course covered in order to be able to attempt it. Nothing is particularly difficult, there's just so much mixing of topics and they all seem to just melt into one.
Katniss1998 wrote: » Lovely paper. Thought the book debts question was a little tricky. I said that the charge over the bank account did not need to be registered because it was not a registerable charge. Does that sounds ok?
mydogwentroof wrote: » It was a lengthy question. What did you say for the bit about the books getting stolen?
Iso_123 wrote: » I was wondering if anyone could help me out with EU and FMOG - There's nothing in my manual about article 34 and purely internal situations and I see this come up sometimes in questions and the examiner mentions that it needs to be discussed in the report for those questions. Does anyone have some notes on art 34 in relation to purely internal situations/cases or anything? I have loads of materials to swap!
RebeccaM90 wrote: » Can anyone please help with regard to possible areas of reform for adverse possession? Help would be much appreciated, last past paper question to do and I’ve hit a brick wall...
catonafence wrote: » Pm me your email and I’ll send you my notes
murray132 wrote: » Can I please get notes off you as well, I would be most thankful 🙈
AA21 wrote: » Would anyone have a sample answer on illegal contracts? And the courts approach in refusing to enforce such contracts?? There’s been a few recent enough cases on it so defo going to cover it as an essay question ! Any help would be appreciated
Lealaw wrote: » I went with section s1001 tax consolidation act 1997 revenue can take what is due from the account. If not registered under that I understand it is invalid. Catch 22 - Either way I think revenue should be able to get what was due. Not 100% sure on this but read it somewhere and I know he is a fan of s.1001.
mydogwentroof wrote: » He is categorically not a fan of s.1001...In his book he says that if there was a prize for the most tortuous, cryptic and rambling enactment it would go to s.1001
