Irish judiciary are completely att odds with the whole using promissory as a sword thing...Costello in Re JR says yes caspable of creating proprietary interest but O'hanlon in Asc of GP's LTD v minister for health says could not be used as cause of action. Im beginning to be thankful for my choice to skip it!!
Again anyone got any thoughts for contract friday?? On Oct 5, 5:25 pm, MacDara Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > I think (hope) it was proprietary as it relates to interests in > property. > Also promissory is only a defence to a claim which would have left > the son with no remedy whereas you can base a claim in proprietary > estoppel. I went for estoppel under Ramsden v Dysen but who knows! > > On Oct 5, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
