Hey, I thought the paper was a lot nicer than company thats for sure.....
Did anyone think Q 5 was obscure on Injunctions.? Unfortunately it only dawned on me late on that it was an injunctions question !!!! On Oct 6, 6:07 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
