caius97 wrote: » Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?
FE1_2020_ wrote: » Thanks for posting this, I answered the damages problem question using the bulk of this for the mitigation of losses came in real handy thankfully wrote it down this morning and was thrilled to be able to put it to good use. Did anyone else answer this Q ? I never mentioned the Cullen case, but did address the remoteness of damages using the Hadley and Victoria cases etc
awsah wrote: » yes omg thank you for that I used it also, I wrote down cullen and then I couldnt remember if that's where it fit in so I took it out but yes used the other two cases
FE1new wrote: » No problem. Here is what I have. Dundalk Racing v Hyland 2017 The Court of Appeal has issued significant guidance on a plaintiff’s duty to mitigate his losses. A plaintiff who refuses a reasonable offer which would have the effect of avoiding unnecessary losses proceeds at considerable risk. This is especially so where the offer does not require him to forego rights claimed arising from the breach. Such a plaintiff may be refused damages he might otherwise be awarded. Significantly, however, the Court of Appeal also vacated the awards of damages. It did so because the bookmakers could have avoided the loss of profits they claimed. The principle applied is that a plaintiff cannot recover loss that could have been avoided had he acted reasonably. The plaintiff has a duty to take “all reasonable steps” to minimise his loss. What is reasonable in any case is a question of fact, though the standard by which the plaintiff is judged is not unduly harsh; the court should be pragmatic because it is the defendant, as wrongdoer, who put the plaintiff in that difficult position. So, for example, if the plaintiff has two reasonable ways of mitigating loss, the plaintiff is not unreasonable if it later transpires that the loss would have been less had he chosen the other option. However, the obligation to mitigate loss may require the plaintiff to enter into a contract (even under protest) with the party who the plaintiff says was in breach of the earlier contract.
jjjjjop wrote: » 5th is very good - congrats on that! Yeah its seems like a good job especially since these exams arent going that well haha.
Katniss1998 wrote: » What did people talk about for question 1? I spent ages talking about consumer protection and then realised that it was a private sale!
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
Mc96 wrote: » I was 5 in Dublin and got called about 11 months later, I was 8th in Cork but as I had turned down the Dublin one I was taken off all the panels so I'm not sure how quickly I would've been called for that. It's hard to judge though as it purely depends on vacancies as they come up, you might be lucky and get offered very quickly if there are a few people leaving around the same time or if those ahead of you turn it down! I definitely think you will be offered but just might take awhile. I know they say they only retain the panel for 12 months but I heard they often hold onto it for 2 years.
Diamond_Hands wrote: » How does one distinguish between a problem question relating to freedom of services verses freedom of establishment? I'm guessing they're mutually exclusive
jjjjjop wrote: » What number were you on the panel out of interest? Im placed number 8 atm and just wondering is there any chance of it being offered haha
Fe123 wrote: » Is the EU law institution question always generally the same? Could I just learn a sample answer off & be ok?
Mc96 wrote: » I applied for the paralegal positions they have back in 2018 and was on the panel then got offered it but by that stage I had an offer for something else that I went with instead
jjjjjop wrote: » Has anyone here applied for jobs with the legal aid board?
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
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
