I thought the paper was ok, though I suppose I was also dissapointed that neither undue influence or Charitable/Cy Pres/Purpose came up.
I found Q8 ok, however for my 5th question I had no choice but to do Estoppel, and I had only a very rough outline of the topic. However it seemed like a straightforward enough question so fingers crossed. Just one question....For the specific performance question, it seemed to be looking for an essay on the traditional approach to contracts re supervision, however much of the case law concentrates on what has happened since this approach (Such as Posner, Argyll, Five Star and Hill). My answer really discussed these cases. Do you think this was appropriate or should I have focused entirely on the traditional approach where the courts would not specifically enforce these contracts? On Oct 6, 5:29 pm, carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > Thanks a million for that. My friend didnt put tracing, she was just > wondering if that was mixed. I can go and tell her she got the right > thing. > > Best of luck to the rest of you with them!! :) > > On Oct 6, 5:11 pm, the gaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Nah don't think tracing was called for.Did mareva but spent the whole > > time wondering if it was the right thing!Looks like it was anyway. > > Nasty paper... the short questions especially. > > Plus q8? I could barely write 2.5 pages,if the whole q alone had been > > part of a two parte it would have occupied me more. > > > The staff in Neptune are plonkers too.Who turned off the lights like? > > And would your man ever make his announcements before the papers are > > handed out not after when everyone's frantically scanning the paper to > > see if they can have a go off 5 qs!. > > > On Oct 6, 4:59 pm, Missy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I did Mareva for that...tracing??? God I hope not. If it was I'm > > > finished! It wasn't too bad a paper. A bit disappointed there was no > > > charitable trust/cy pres and no maxims as part question but other than > > > that I hope I did ok > > > > On Oct 6, 4:56 pm, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yeah the furniture question was Mareva. I hope to christ tracing > > > > wasn't involved though... > > > > > On Oct 6, 4:45 pm, carmody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hey there, > > > > > > My friend sat the paper this morning and was wondering if the question > > > > > re: furniture or something was tracing and mareva injunction or > > > > > something completely different - sorry not sure what no. it was or > > > > > exact details. Were injunctions on the paper? > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > On Oct 6, 4:35 pm, Vampybabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think I messed up big time on that paper..it will kill me if I > > > > > > have > > > > > > to repeat it, I've passed the fecking thing twice > > > > > > before...AAGGGHH!!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
