He said 90% chance as out of the last 9 papers it has come up 7 times. But, as always, nothing is guaranteed it's just going on the law of averages so it's entirely up to yourself.
On Oct 1, 7:38 pm, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any particular reason reason he has recission/undue influence down as > a 90% chance? It's come up the last two papers hasn't it? > > On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Doodles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm glad you asked as I was about to . .. the following were > > highlighted for us in Independent: > > > Maxims > > Either Quia Timet, mareva or anton pillar > > specific performance > > undue influence/recission (90% chance) > > complete constitution (may be a full Q) / stong v bird > > secret trusts (maybe re stead) > > charitable trusts / cy-pres > > quistclose trusts / joint deposits > > property rights of co-habitees (only a feeling with the lecturer but > > Griffith also had a Q on their mock paper so they must have a feeling > > too) > > trusteeship > > > On Oct 1, 7:13 pm, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > What is everyone doing for equity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
