Of course you did! The examiner would have had to realise that the only law to refer to was a "baby version" of how contracts are formed and that student's couldn't do it without asking a lot of questions. I bet very few people failed, because it's very hard to see what you should have been able to do with the question.
Sure, look...in other years the examiner really comes down hard on students for not answering what is asked. The exam specifically asked you about legitimate expectation, but lo-and-behold the examiner doesn't come down hard on anyone for not dealing with it. Rather, the student is praised for dealing with it! I would have assumed that if the exam question was "as intended" people would have been killed for not dealing with l.e. Also, the contract examiner is usually great for saying what cases "good students" referred to, which is curiously absent for that q1. Wasn't as bad as expecting CONTRACT students to know that planning law was governed by legislation though...was it? :-) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Smurf Sent: 07 October 2009 13:51 To: FE-1 Study Group Subject: Re: Contract 'Tansey' case 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 10/07/09 05:18:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
