i completely left out/forgot about parol evidence rule--dont think it was that relevant anyway. i think main cases were oscar chess dick bentley BoI v Smyth and then cases like leef v art gallery/christopher hill fine art to demonstrate that expertise/experience matters...thats what i did anyway. I also briefly mentioned how when courts establish that a statement is a term, how they decide what kind of term it is-condition/ warranty/intermediate. i hope/think the above is correct
On Apr 5, 2:48 pm, Wendy Lyon <[email protected]> wrote: > Terms vs representations ... with a bit about the parol evidence rule > ... hope that's what we were supposed to do :) > > On 05/04/2009, 8th Timer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > Thought this exam was ok, but to be sure to be sure what did ye do for > > the verbal statements question?? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
