Yeah I didn't spend a lot of time on it, but I assumed they wanted it mentioned because I couldn't think why else they would ask specifically about VERBAL statements ...
Didn't do anything on warranty/condition/innominate distinction though! On 05/04/2009, LDGantly <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
