I thought that it was not a nice paper. All my topics were the part questions so it made it very long. My answer on direct effect and MS liability was very waffely. As for the article 29 question, bull crap all the way.
On Oct 8, 4:10 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ugh, I'm just hoping the examiner has a high tolerance of bull sh!t. > > On Oct 8, 2:52 pm, ShellBelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Don't know about anyone else but I totally messed up Q2 on Direct > > Effect, although I answered parts iii and iv on MS Liab I actually > > used the cases from horizontal direct effect (Marshall, Foster, > > Costanzo) for part iv on whether or not Mr Farmer can claim damages > > from the private company. Which i now realise was totally wrong!! What > > did people do for this Q? My other 4 Qs were ok apart from the > > waffling I had to do for part ii of the Parliament Q, is there a > > reasonable chance I can pass?? What is the examiner like? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
