Depending on how you analyse you could fit 1137 into your analysis of 1139. Say if you used there is fraud as LQ for 1137 and you have a condition for 1139 similar to that you could fit them into each other. For an example you can look at page 51.
THEN AGAIN: I'm not sure if this is right or these articles are even the correct ones, so don't quote me on it! I don't think it's wrong not to do it.
6 months ago
Guys when applying the facts of the case to the conditions of the rules do we need to go
-c1: fulfilled because...
-C2:non applicable to the facts ....
or write it in the way of a text ? Thank you
yea thats what i thought as well hahah but then later on in the scentence it talks about fraud and the ground for nullity which got me confused, but since we can only use 2 provisions i guess its those ones
You can apply for a resit or something like that but it's in January. You should ask your tutor for more specific details.
7 months ago
I'm selling my "contract law: a comparative introduction" second edition book for 30€, my "constitution compared" book for 35€, and my Maastricht collection (I, II, iii, IV) for 75€. if you're interested in one of them, leave a comment please.
I can't. What could happen is, that a cumulative condition is split into several alternative conditions. But these alternative conditions are then "subordinate" to the cumulative condition. For instance, you could have two cumulative conditions (C1, C2), that means both need to be fulfilled, but for each of them there are two alternative ways to fulfil them (C1a, C1b and C2a, C2b respectively).
8 months ago
Maybe it helps if you write it down as "(C1a or C1b) and (C2a or C2b)".
Note the brackets: "(C1a or C1b)" is C1, and "(C2a or C2b)" is C2. You first evaluate the alternative conditions in the brackets, so you know whether each C1 and C2 are fulfilled, and then "go up" one level and evaluate whether the whole thing is fulfilled.
updated 8 months ago
For the assignment 1 (exam first period) is there anyone, who also choosed the article on blackmailing ? Because, I am not sure at all.
I struggled to determine the legal issue because I was hesitating between ownership (of the paintings) and criminal liability. I opted for the second option although, I don't know if my legal issue should be, whether the neighbor is liable for blackmailing, or be less specific, and therefore stating that the legal issue is his criminal liability ? If I choose "criminal liability", I would use two provisions, one stating that to be criminal liable you must "fulfilled" one of the criminal offense, which in this case would be "blackmailing" and as a sub-provision I will use the blackmailing provision, but I'm not sure if it is the right process...
Any tips/advices ?
Thank you very much.
If the condition is referring to something/someone from another condition, which itself is not fulfilled, you could put N/A. Imagine conditions along the lines "One guy gave some good to another" and "The good was orange", then if the first condition is not fulfilled because there is no good, the second one is non-applicable, because it refers to something that doesn't exist.
Anonymous Gas Pump
updated 9 months ago
Has anyone got meeting 3- using and reffering to legal sources’s preparation tasks? Please:)
Does anyone know how to refer Dutch case law into footnotes according to OSCOLA? I only came this far:  HR 378 NJ
But not sure whether this is OSCOLA, since the oxford handbook only deals with UK and international case law
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012quickreferenceguide.pdf - this is the quick guide
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf - this is the full guide.
I always use these, much better and straight-forward explained than in the book we used for skills. This is what Oscola says: "Cite cases from other jurisdictions as they are cited in their own jurisdiction, but with minimal punctuation. If the name of the law report series cited does not itself indicate the court, and the identity of the court is not obvious from the context, you should also give this in either full or short form in brackets at the end of the citation.
When citing a decision of the highest court of a US state, the abbreviation of the name of the state suffices." page 32 of the Full Guide
Cc: If someone abandons him in a helpless situation although he has him in custody and thereby exposes him to a danger of death.
Cd: If someone abandons him in a helpless situation although he has him in custody and thereby exposes him to a serious health damage.
two separate conditions
All the boys and board members are liable for ella’s death. But should we also see if they are liable for celia’s psychic illness, because they were only arrested when ella was found and earlier not for celia?...
1 year ago
do we need to identify only 1 fallacy or all 3 in the case, if only 1 how do we choose which one?