Hi Just to let you know I sat and passed that contract exam and did question 1 without mentioning Tansey as I forgot it existed and then discovered there's only about 2 lines on it in Clark! That was a mean exam...
On Oct 7, 12:16 pm, Ruddy <[email protected]> wrote: > pheeeuh! > > I approached the question on terms but when I saw her mention the > Tansey case it threw a spanner into works of my judgment...A terrible > question to start the exam. Good old examiner ( I shall not utter her > name!)....Always keepin it interesting. > > Indeed, Worst question ever. > > Thanks Brian > > On Oct 7, 11:35 am, brian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Now, you then have to ask - how does that assist for Q1? An > > interesting point is that it is the only case the examiner refers to > > and in that case (which the judgment runs to about 17 pages) there is > > about 14 lines of law! > > > Further, all that case says is that a college could make a unilateral > > offer capable of being accepted. So, if the law society had made it > > known, for example, that if you study a course at "the Law Society > > Grind School" you will later be eligible to sit the fe1's, you could > > argue that you taking up the course of study at the "Law Society Grind > > School" was acceptance of that. > > > But none of that is relevant to that Q1. The big deal with that fact > > scenario is simply whether not the *terms* which were offered (which > > you have not seen) said anything about reserving the right to change > > marking systems. Like, who cares if a college can make a unilateral > > offer (all that Tansey says) - nothing of the sort occured here! > > Rather, it appears that the negotiation was, if anything, bi-lateral > > with a college-to-person contract carried out; "I offer you a place, I > > accept that place". > > > The big issue is what the terms of that contract were, and Tansey > > offers no help on that point. I'd be laughed at in Court if I > > proposed it did! Were the regulations part of the contract? Did the > > regulations have a term saying they could be changed? I know most > > college contracts would be like that. > > > Indeed, the whole erratum slip is irrelevant. If he had a contract > > which said "pass rate was 40%" that contract can't be changed > > unilaterally, and so the erratum is entirely pointless. But if the > > term of the contract was "the college reserves the right to change > > pass rates, provided you get good notice", it would be a differnet > > issue. > > > Sure, look what you are told "Joe" wants to argue: > > > "Joe argues that the contract was formed in January 2006 and the terms > > of that contract are those contained in the manual handed to him upon > > commencement of the course in September 2006 and do not include any > > alterations thereof which were not brought to his attention at that > > time. He also argues that he had an expectation that no changes would > > be made to the regulations." > > > The terms of the contract are those contained in the manual? > > Wait...does she mean the regulations? What did the manual say about > > pass rates? Certainly they used the manual to pass out "erratum" > > slips which appear to draw attention to a change in regs, but if the > > contract is based on the regs, the manual is a red herring and no > > amount of "notice" alters a breach a contract. > > > And then, the coup-de-grace...legitimate expectation? In a contract > > exam? It's interesting to note that in the report she doesn't "hit" > > students who didn;t refer to it - only saying "good students" did > > refer to it. > > > Bottom line...if that came to me in real life I'd ask to see his > > application form and nothing else can be said about the "terms" of the > > relationship until one sees that. > > > The fact that the examiner didn't really offer any insight into how > > she thought it should be answered save to refer to the plausibly > > similar, but legally off-the-point case in Tansey speaks volumes. > > > Worst...question...ever. > > > On Oct 7, 11:14 am, Ruddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks John, Very much appreciated > > > > On Oct 7, 11:08 am, "John Freeman - Westland Law" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Ruddy, > > > > > You might find the note attached of some use in relation to Tansey. > > > > > John > > > > > Westland Lawwww.lawgrinds.ie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ruddy > > > > Sent: 06 October 2009 23:07 > > > > To: FE-1 Study Group > > > > Subject: Contract 'Tansey' case > > > > > Anyone have any information re this case. I think its in the offer/ > > > > acceptance area, maybe legitmate expectation. It was relevant in > > > > Question 1 April 2009. > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Formation of a contract.doc > > > > 48KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
