Yeah Q7-Injunctions/Obscure...!
On Oct 6, 6:35 pm, torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nasty paper i thought, only did 2 good answers, SP and Mareva. Trustee
> q was very short, proprietry estop just winged it (no cse law at all,
> just the principles) and certainties essay q awful, i blanked for that
> q,no case law at all... ill be repeating in april!
>
> Q 5 was the estoppel q,.......i presume you mean Q 7??
>
> On 6 Oct, 18:25, billybob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
