Kcookies2015 wrote: » Finally onto the 5th and final one for this sitting... Is it essential to bring the Sale of Goods Act in or will one survive without it? Forgot to leave it in for checking Tuesday
vid36 wrote: » I passed Contact without it but it is still useful to have. Maybe you should go there early and hand it in on the day just in case.
SleepvDenning wrote: » I would definitely add Terms to your list (e.g. rep v warranty, implied terms, etc). Looking at old papers, that's actually the most frequently incorporated topic in both the essay and problem questions. Also, the legislation comes up quite often.
codoherty16 wrote: » Hey guys, in preparation for the last one (yay! ) I was thinking of just covering this for contract? Offer and Acceptance Consideration Estoppel Intention, Certainty and Formal Requirements Misrepresentation Mistake Exclusion Clauses Undue Influence Duress Remedies Anyone have any opinions on that or is doing the same? Nearly there now!!
Laura Steph wrote: » Hi Raquel, I'm in the same boat but honestly, don't put more pressure on yourself than absolutely necessary. I'm on my second set and decided to only take three in this round. ( The prospect of Constitutional and EU in one sitting was too horrendous) Take your time, start with 3/4 that you feel will settle you in. As far revision courses, I completely agree with other contributor's advice. They're more fe1 focused and will get you over the line. Hoping Independent College is second time lucky for me! Best of luck whatever you decide!
EthanSS wrote: » What came up in Const today? How as the paper?
lawbear wrote: » Hey guys, if anybody is looking for manuals and materials for March I am selling 2015 griffith manuals for constitutional, EU, Contract and Tort, 25 Euro each
OfficeGirl2015 wrote: » Tis very hard to revise contract when the match is on!
Iceman101 wrote: » That wedding at the back of the hotel is only gonna get louder as the night goes on
Iceman101 wrote: » I should have mentioned that the "cold air" coming from my aircon is the same as when you open the oven and put your head down without letting the heat fully escape. It's like that only hotter.
sunshine and showers wrote: » For Consideration, the Independent manual has Williams v Roffey Bros under the Rule in Pinnel's Case. Surely it's more an exception to the rule against performance of an already existing contractual duty? Or am I missing something?