vickyplumx wrote: » Can anyone tell me whether tort April 14 question 6 is nuisance or rylands ? And furthermore what on earth is q2 about ?
Legal125 wrote: » Q6 is nuisance, his report says 'omission to act' so pretty much nuisance. I don't think it would have hurt to mention r v f Q2 was abatement of nuisance. That's what report says. Which I know means that the person impinged can take steps to prevent the nuisance but have no idea how he wanted that answered. Anyone.??
sunshine and showers wrote: » Have people gotten confirmation from the Law Society? I still haven't received anything official.
May92 wrote: » Hey, I just went to book the Ibis hotel for the first couple of exams but it's booked out already, so is the red cow moran hotel...any suggestions on where else there is to stay? I'm worried most things will be booked out at this stage considering it's the weekend of the all Ireland
Legal125 wrote: » Got my exam number I'm in the 50's, less people this sitting...?
dashdoll wrote: » I'm in the 200's.
southcounty wrote: » Hey, Does anyone know where I could get sale of goods legislation for contract? Do you buy both acts separately or are they in one booklet?
MissM89 wrote: » Hi all, panic def starting to creep in for these exams! Has anyone any thoughts/tips for Tort? Its such a broad course, with such a wide range of topics but so hard to know what to include! Any suggestions would be very welcome! Happy studying
May92 wrote: » Was trying to book Sat 20th - Tues 23rd...it's booked out on the sat and sun nights, and they want 175 for the monday night which is just ridiculous! Hmmm I suppose I'll just have keep looking to see if there are any other hotels available on the luas line. Why does it have to be the same weekend as the match..!
southcounty wrote: » Hi guys, Just looking at q2 March 2011 for tort. When read this thought I'd answer it on ord neg principles duty&standard care causation etc. but read a sample answer and it seems to focus on failure to act by publicans, schools etc. just wondering if anyone knows if you could answer it on ord principles or would that be totally wrong? Q 8 march 2013 is the same??? Sorry for a long winded question!!
Legal125 wrote: » Yeah affirmative duty of care apparantly. Ess a tricky neg Q. The person omission to act neg. etc tied up with causation In q8 2013 he says at the end - whether duty of care is owed, therefore he tells u talk about duty of care flanigan v houlihan and publican cases would have been relevant there. His prob Qs scare me. A lot sometimes. Hoping I can decipher on the day what he is act asking
southcounty wrote: » Yeah totally don't get that like..when he specifically said duty of care I'd have ran with donoghue v Stevenson etc then onto standard of care and try to establish causation. I can't imagine you'd be penalised too much if u went that route and had 2 or three publican cases...hopefully anyway!
dashdoll wrote: » Only finishing making notes today...FML. 5 subjects...so overwhelmed!
Legal125 wrote: » I have felt overwhelmed for 9 months now. I feel ur pain. Try to get learning as much as you can.
