Lawlz wrote: » How did everyone find contract? 7 PQs was a shocker! Saw a comment about the question with the exclusion clause that there was misrep in it aswel. What was the misrep?! Fear I missed that. Also did half offer/ acceptance, a touch on SOGA and then did misrep for question 1. Did anyone do misrep for q 1?! Hope it went well for everyone.
FE1new wrote: » I might be wrong!!! I thought Tom's statement to Sarah that the computers would run the program was a Misrepresentation as thats what induced her to sign the contract.
ElMo7 wrote: » Can I ask what you are you using this case for? Are you inserting it into an answer for Institutions (court of justice)? I have no case law for Institutions and am now freaking out
T.Chunter164 wrote: » I talked about offer and acceptance, specifically counter offers and invitation to treat. (I also made the same mistake of wasting time discussing consumer protection when it was a private sale ) BUT I mentioned some misrepresentation of fact and honestly held misrepresentation so hopefully I won’t get grilled for it
fe12020grad wrote: » I haven't even finished my exams yet but I'm already wondering when results will be out. Does any know roughly when they are usually released after the March sitting? Were ye long waiting for them after November?
Lawlz wrote: » Omg that’s it! Cheers. Completely missed that! Gutted! Did you do misrep for q 1 by any chance?! Along with o+a?
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Exams at the start of March were normally the start /mid May so the fact that exams were end of March this sitting, I would imagine that start of June might be reasonable!
RebeccaM90 wrote: » Anyone got any ideas for reform of adverse possession ? See it was asked ...
FE1new wrote: » No I didn't do it there as I said excellent quality for second hand is different then with a new car and Bernstien v Pamson said that driving safely was good enough. I also mention 14(2)(b) that he drove it but I'm second guessing myself. I know I'm wrong now as its a private sale.....so many PQ!!!!!
awsah wrote: » Yes I only answered Sam's part in Misrepresentation I did consumer question with exclusion clauses in another one
law987 wrote: » - ECHR: JA Pye case, shows our system is at the edge of what's acceptable - Constitution: right to own property, without excessive encroachment - clarify law: what constitutes active possession, if intentions are relevant - unfair on paper title holders, no positive action required of squatters - LRC Report 2004: squatter must apply for court order, gives owner chance to intervene
Lawwww2020 wrote: » I did it one part on merchantable quality; one part on fitness for purpose - relying on Sam’s assurance and then exemption clause part! Found that paper super stressful
Lawlz wrote: » Ya all the problems questions were hard! Difficult to pick out every topic in every single one of them. I find them especially difficult when they’re online!! Having to scroll up to the q and the small answer box is not ideal.
awsah wrote: » That's exactly what I did except I just put fit for purpose and consumer protection jn the one heading I didnt get time to read over or spell check so I know its a complete disaster and my mistak essay was about 2 paragraphs. It's going to be a miracle to pass!!
ruby1998 wrote: » Question - if an amendment is made to the will before it is executed does it have to be signed and witnessed in the same way as original will?
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » Think freedom of services relates more to providing your service in the member state so like a system based in Ireland running in Spain and freedoms of establishment is the ability to set up a business
jjjjjop wrote: » Has anyone here applied for jobs with the legal aid board?
