Robbo wrote: » Morbid curiosity here but in the DMC question in Equity, is there some recent case on assisted suicide? I treated the beneficiaries input in the suicide as a "clean hands" issue since we were explicitly told to stay away from any Succession Act concerns.
ShamblesB wrote: » I just said it would prob be void as a matter of public policy as assisting someone with suicide is unlawful. The clean hands thing sounds better!
ShamblesB wrote: » Guys what was question 6A about today???
doing wrote: » But it was Mary who killed Deirdre, not Jane, how would Jane be complicit (as far as criminal law goes) in the assisted suicide? I would have thought Wilkes v Allington (where the precedent was if you do a dmc in apprehension of death, but then die of something else), it's still valid, would cover that? Since it was a straightforward DMC, I thought the issue was undue influence like Gregg v Kidd, or even Simpson v Simpson as the cancer drugs and pain medication could have addled her mind and she'd no independent legal advice? When I did property DMC was covered in far more detail than in my Equity book. I can't remember the cases from property but I think there were cases on whether DMC was valid in the case of suicide? I wish I had them at hand yesterday, although I don't know if they fall under property law rather than equity?
KarlKarlson123 wrote: » I also thought that the manner of death was irrelevant for DMC to arise as per Wilkes v Allington. She had also been contemplating death anyway in a serious way ie terminally ill and was given a month to live - so this satisfied the requirement in Bentham v potterton? Could be wrong
Gibbonw2 wrote: » Oh my 5th answer was the state participation one. In haste i answered this in reference to Altmark and SGEIs. It was an ok answer but not what he asked. Any chance i might get any marks for it in peoples opinion? Really dont know what he was trying to achieve by throwing such an unfair paper. I know the pass rate was high last year but is what he was doing effectively 'proving a point'. I was more confident going into this than any other exam and worked extremely hard but just know ill be hovering in the 45 % bracket at best!
Gibbonw2 wrote: » I can understand the need to knock a subject like direct effect out once in a while but to not compensate this by including other popular areas or not distorting the manner of asking questions is unfair and doesnt measure a students overall knowledge of the EU area. For example that conferral of powers question and its reference to the Polish parliament quote. Why decide, when the exam is missing already significantly consistently asked questions to alter the overall genesis of a question which has always been asked in the same format, more or less. I covered over 90% of the curriculum feeling leaving out aspects like brussels regulations, eu criminal law , movement of capital etc could be compensated. But no. He must really have had a grilling after passing 70 % of takers in october.
Fe1stresser wrote: » Company and constitutional are two of the 6 I'm hoping I passed. Eu and contract were non starters due the paper and the fact contract was the last exam respectively. Can people indicated what they wrote for company and constitutional? In company I did coporate veil, restriction, crystallisation of Charges, directors duties and oppression ( last 2 being horrendous) In constitutional, i did question 1 and 8 on religion and privacy respectively, sep of power, fair procedures and a case note I think I've a good shot at tort, criminal and equity...
Fe1stresser wrote: » Yep that's the one.... I had done everything re statutory regulation of directors duties and the common law duties and by the time I got to it after wrecking the oppression quest I was in a blind panic...
Fe1stresser wrote: » Just wondering if anyone shed any insight into how company is marked? Had 2 great questions, 1 ok and then 2 dismal ones... The last 2 ironically I had actually studied and knew well but within the time constraints and the fact that I answered them last they were very rough. So I'm worried- I answered 5 but....
Fe1stresser wrote: » By the way in the DMC question in equity, I think that the question or something similar appeared a few years ago and the examiner in the reports stated that the question should be approached in a manner analogous to Agnew...
doing wrote: » Did you get that case from your property manual or your Equity manual? When I did Property using the Griffith manual DMC was covered in heavy detail and that case definitely rings a bell. Doing Equity this time, also with the Griffith manual, I noticed that DMC was covered in far less detail, only 4-5 cases I think. I assumed that the guy who wrote the manual didn't include those cases because they fall under "property Law" rather than "the law of Equity" (can anyone tell me if this is true?), but if that isn't the case then the Equity manual is completely inadequate for DMC. Great effort sitting all 8 in one go.
Fe1stresser wrote: » Actually it's in Hilary delanys book...another poster mentioned it- it's Agnew v Belfast banking corp...a question appeared maybe 2-3 years ago and the examiner mentioned it in her report... I didn't use any manuals, just textbooks because I found that some of the manuals really oversimplify things and were missing loads of pages.
doing wrote: » Well if I fail then that's definitely the way I'll be approaching that and any other remaining exams - using the books instead of the manuals. Thanks.
Fe1stresser wrote: » I'm sure you'll be fine! I actually think that I should have used the manuals...I spent two months typing up complicated notes that I couldn't recall in the exam...I used nutshells for criminal supplemented with a bit from Conor hanleys book that was by far the best exam I've sat in years. Plus I genuinely think that there is no right answer in these kind of scenarios...courts employ different reasoning in factually similar cases all the time...I think that once you identify the issue, address the salient features of the prob question you'll do fine. I did equity last October but failed because I was short a question ( because I was lazy and didn't do enough work) and I still got 45...so nearly passing on 4 questions...she is not a terrible marker!
Gibbonw2 wrote: » Dont bother looking at eu again! The more i look at it, the less confident i am!! If you want to get copies just contact law societx with your 3 digit number. Im sure theyl send them down to you. But take a week out, forget about all things fe1. Results long way away so you arent going to get solace stressing over the paper. And best of luck with results. If i get chance ill pm a link with eu exam next week for u
