Could anyone please help me analysing 3:34 (1) and (2), I'm so confused :/
View 3 more comments
Back to your question, the first subsection has two LQ
what do you mean, how would that be written
Anyone else is doing the resit?
Hi guys do you know someone that has passed this course with good grades who can help me doing my resit for the first assignment I'll give 50€
Hey! Is anyone considering applying articles 1132 and 1134 to prove mistake on the essential characteristics of the other party?
What is LQ for Art. 1139 ? Fraud constitutes a case for nullity?
The contract is null
Is there anyone who used "there is an act" as one of the conditions for 1137 and if yes, how did you apply it?
Should we combine the (schematic) analysis of Art. 1137 and Art. 1139 together, or should we analyze them separately?
View 1 more comment
bit how do you combine it then ?
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.
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
For Task 4, you need to do it like you just did, by a schematic representation. But when it comes to the last Task, about the legal opinion, you need to write it in the way of a text.
Is anyone considering article 1134 instead of fraud? Reading though the text there are multiple reasons as to how Jacques didn't technically commit fraud, or at least i think so..
View 4 more comments
but 1139 talks about error.. don't you have to say anything about that then? sorry I'm so confused haha
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
How did you write down the legal consequence for article 1137?
View 1 more comment
Would you use art 1137 (1) and (2) or juste (1) ? Thank you
I used the whole article.
Is anyone considering using 1136 as you could say Piet neglected his duty to investigate, especially considering he's considered a connoisseur?
No area was marked for this question
i think the provisions are 1137 and 1139, simular to the contract law exam question.
Hello, does anyone know when is the resit for the first exam-assignment and how to register to it?
They will tell you in January the procedure. I think you should be already registered for it but I am not sure.
got it done, thanks!
Does anyone know how the “take-home assignment” going to be? Is it mandatory to be present during a certain class to obtain the assignment or will it be uploaded online like the normal ones?
It will be uploaded online just like the last one. Apparently they are publishing it at 8:30 on Monday the 16th and you need to submit it online by Friday.
what happens when you fail your assignment? what do you have to do?
You can apply for a resit or something like that but it's in January. You should ask your tutor for more specific details.
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.
hey, do you guys also had 6 conditions for the assignment ? with of course sub-alternative conditions ?
nope I had 3 cumulatives with a few sub-alernatives. However, it depends though you can make it in more steps if you split the facts more for instance
hi guys might be stupid question but how can a condition be cumulative and at the same time alternative? (totally confused :( )
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).
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.
Hello, 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.
View 2 more comments
Don‘t sue me if I‘m wrong though 😂 But all people I talked to had the same.
Haha, I will if you are. I think the two conditions for a binding contract are fulfilled in our case, so you accountable to me haha.
Hello, can someone share exam assigment answer example? Please
Does anybody know when to use N/A and when to use not fulfilled when analyzing a legal rule?
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.
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: [1954] HR 378 NJ But not sure whether this is OSCOLA, since the oxford handbook only deals with UK and international case law - this is the quick guide - 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
Does maybe anyone has any ideas according to resit assignment? what type of the fallacy?
View 7 more comments
i think 34 is possible too. yeah
32(self-defence) is about the attack and 34 is about the danger (necessity)
does anyone know which article should we use for resit assignment ?
View 1 more comment
do you think could it be 212?
i meant 212 sorry mistake
Anyone have any examples of good research questions for skills 1 resit ?
What are the criminal liability requirements in Germany?
Guys does anybody understand the format of task 6...? not sure how or what to write exactly
What is the legal issue? I'm torn between are they liable or are they guilty of abandonment?
there are two legal issues. One is the liability and the other is the committed act
Does anybody understand how to chose/decide if its C1A or C1AA etc u kno?
View 6 more comments
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
what is the lq for 221 (1) ?
what is the conclusion of the case? are the boys | boardmembers liable?
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?...
do we need to identify only 1 fallacy or all 3 in the case, if only 1 how do we choose which one?
View 2 more comments
tu quoque
thanks because i was not sure since i also heard people mentioning bandwagon
What are the legal rules of assignment II?
View 18 more comments
how did you guys add the subsections 2 and 3 to subsection 1? are you allowed to just add that with the others or not? can someone write down how they wrote it in their assignment?
what fallacy of the text did you guys use and what was the correct fallacy to apply? i heard a lot about tu queqou but for which sentence in the text did you guys use that for?
also are you guys doing section 1 or section 2 for art 25
Do we need to write why we think this is the main legal issue and to apply the fallacy to the text or it’s sufficient just to state it?
View 5 more comments
for which one did you use that for what sentence in the text ?
was that for the one with 'come on robert'?
Anyone doing resit assignment 2 and know the rules applicable to the case ?
View 6 more comments
Guys quick question, how did you apply the rule analysis on article 32? Just don't understand how you incorporated the definition of necessary defence? As like C2 or ?
Anyone have any examples of good research questions for skills 1 resit ?
Does anyone have an example of a legal research question writing? Especially to illustrate the use of OSCOLA, ELS style
View 1 more comment
Volume with civil code
Yeah, volume IV