Thanks for that... On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Ruddy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Im going on sample answer I have from Griffith, it identifes the > question as promissory and goes on into High trees, cullen v cullen > etc. > > If the question today referred to the son taking his name of the > local authority housing list or any other form of detriment based on > his father's assurances then it is very similar to Q4 April 2008, > Assurance is akin to a promise. I didnt do the estoppel question > skipped it for certainties instead. I would need the question in > front of me, but again, the griffith sample answer to Q4 april 2008 > is promissory, if you can say with certainty that the question in the > exam was very similar then this may be the case. Remember you will > still get marks for identifying estoppel, and as property involved, > would fall under the Dillwyn v Lllewellyn form. N.B even the judiciary > conflate concepts of promissory and proprietary. Sorry If ive > confused you.. confused myself now! > > Post mortems...no good shall come of them!!! > > Aoife McBennett wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
