but in the april 2008 report she mentions unconscionability which is a major element of proprietary estoppel?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Ruddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > The last question was the one with reference to a widower and his > son. It believe it was an exact copy of Question 4, april 2008, which > was promissory estoppel. > > Im sorry but looks like it was promissory. Proprietary estoppel > questions are more along the lines of one party making improvements to > land etc....I do hope Im wrong for your sake but if you have the 2008 > paper take a look at it. Im afraid I only have hard copy. > > On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Aoife McBennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > was that promissory or proprietary estoppel? please say proprietary? > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ruddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Definately a nice paper, though all papers are nice if you know the > > > stuff! > > > > > Couldnt believe some of the questions, e.g, promissory estoppel and > > > charitbale trusts/cypres were verbatim repeats of recent exams! > > > > > Anyone got anything useful to add about contract this friday?? > > > > > On Oct 5, 3:39 pm, lucylou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well how did everyone find equity? A lovely paper if you only had > > > > equity to be thinking about I would think! > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
