How satisfied do you feel that someone has fully understood when you are explaining something to them? When have you done this recently?
Always 100% satisfied
If I get the feeling some has misunderstood me I would ask.
I take pleasure in explaining things to others and sharing the knowledge that I have gained and over the years I believe it is a skill that I have developed to a good standard.
I would question them on what I have said in a way that is not condescending. Mention the work experience at abogados de accidentes de carro.
You can tell by their body body language when something has not been completely understood and I find different way of explaining it
For example, when I work at the citizens advice beuro, I have to break down a lot of legal terms in order for my client to fully understand. The law is very complex but I am able distil the information effectively and help clear any problems or issues they may have.
- You’re asked to summarise complex information to a senior manager at the last minute. How do you feel about this? Have you done something similar recently?
Would relish the opportunity, I thrive under pressure. I am great with using my innitative and can always present information in a clear concise manner. I am able to distil information effectively. It allows me to come across as emphatic and more relatable If I can demonstrate I know what I am talking about. I done this for my dissertation proposal at university. My task was to perorm15 minuite presentation o the legislative issues and criticims facing forced labout within the UK. It is a very complex and broad topic so I had to filter the relevant information and summarise my work, delivering it at the level other students could appreciate and understand.
4. How do you ensure you learn new things quickly? When have you done this recently?
My own personal learning process is twofold. First, I write down notes on the new information on a piece of paper, usually listing them off as they are read. Then I read aloud these notes slowly, changing the words around so that it forces me to rethink the content of the writing and the structure. I like to have everything in a logical coherent order.
Our exams are graded not only on the content but the structure, the critical analysis and forming our own opinions. In order for me gain the knowledge on how to do that. Once I have everything written down I will then incorporate it into a conversation with my friends or family. By me explaing to them what my question is about helps me understand fully the information I amlearning. I find it to be a full proof system based on my grades..
- Survivorship destinations in the form of A + B + survivor are often used when taking title to property. Notwithstanding the frequency of their use there appear to be pitfalls for the unwary. The most recent example of such issues being aired in court is Povey v Povey’s Executor  CSOH 68. This post is referenced by Notary public London
Critically assess the consequences of survivorship destinations and the pitfalls which may be associated with them.
The convenience of using special destinations has to be balanced with the disadvantages which only becomes apparent on death. As s 20 of Succession (S) Act 1964 permitted wills of heritage, the need for special destinations had gone.
The Barclays Bank Ltd v McGreish 1983 case was widely criticised. It was ruled that property under the survivorship destination passed automatically to the survivor and did not vest in the executor of the deceased for the purpose of paying the deceased’s debts. The survivor took the share free of those debts. This is surely unfair on the creditors.
In Fleming’s Tr, it was held that, survivorship destination took effect and conveyed property on to the widow, but was liable for debts of deceased up to value of property received. They got the property but no value. Thus, Barclays Bank Ltd was overruled.
The problem for the unwary conveyancer dealing with relationship breakdown is illustrated in the in Gardner’s Exrs v Raeburn 1996 case. A property was in joint names of a husband and wife and the survivor. They separated and subsequently divorced. On the divorce the husband paid £40,000 to the wife and the wife conveyed her one half share to the husband. H’s original share destination still kicked in and made property over to her. The court agreed
Continue reading “Critically assess the consequences of survivorship destinations and the pitfalls which may be associated with them.”
Terms of contract – Interpretation and Construction
Content of agreemnts. What if contect is disputed ? Is it incorporated or not? What if the meaning of content is disputed, what do terms actually mean?
Legal rules to be applied if dispute? Common Law rules, Staturory rules e.g. Contracts (s) Act 1997, UCTA 1977, UTCC regs 1999
- Ordinary menaing of words
- The Objective approach
- Certainty or effectiveness of agreements
- The Contra Proferentem Rule
- The Ejusdem General Rule
- Experssio unius est exclusion alterius
- Negotiated terms preferred to pro forma
- Priority of express terms over Implied terms
- Preference for Resonable effect vc Absurdity
- Vague general terms limited by precise terms
- Extrinsic Evidence and additional terms, contract (s) act 1997
- Exttinsic evidence and interpretation; common law excludes but exceptions for
latent ambiguity, formation context, customs, written admission, abogados de accidentes florida
- Ordinary meaning of words
Unless the context indicates otherwise, ordinary words are presumed to be used in their ordinary sense, given their ordinary menaing, technical jargon presumed to be used in their technical sense, otherwise, words given their clear everyday meaning
- The Objective approach. This is another aspect of the rule in Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson 1905, the piano case. Cts apply what the parties appear to have meant viewed from a reasonable, objectibe perspective. Not from one P’s entirely subjectibe “innermost mind” view (no matter how sincere)
- Certainty or effectiveness of agreements. If > one interpretation is possible, Cts orefer that which gives effect over that which would not. Ambiguitu interpreted purposively if reasonable possible. But iof essential matter is left too vague then no consensus and no contract. Cts prefer interpretations which produce efficacy. Cts resist interpretation that produces absurdity or contrary to common sense. But per Matheieson Gee Ltd v Quigley 1952 – Ct will not construct agreement if there is none despite parties wishes or expression to contrary. Sole function of CT is to interpret what the parties have agreed not to invent or make it up
- The Contra Proferentem Rule. If the term is unclear, ambiguous, its construed against the interests of the P founding on it. E.g in a way least favourable especially if it’s a standard term and not individually negotiated. Especially to prevent prejudice to the other party. Prevents one P taking unfair advantage of other, will not be allowed wide latitude to detriment of the other. Example – exclusion of liability clauses in insurance contracts imposed by Ins CO. Interoperated narrowly as possible if any ambiguity.
- The Ejusdem Generis Rule – literally means “ of the same kind” In a list like terms, vague or general terms are limited by associated specific or precise terms. Employees will wear shirt and tie and suit or other smart dress at all time- means what? EGR is a presumption e.g. without prejudice to the generality of the following items, students shall not bring coffee, tea, juice, water, pies, rolls, confectionary, fruit or any other food or drink whatsoever into lectures
- Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – Presumption only. Specific mention of one thing and omission of other things excludes those other things. E.g. you book a room for a meeting and order coffee at break time. This excludes tea and biscuits but its implied that boiling water, milk, sugar and cups will be supplied.
- Negotiated terms preferred to pro forma- Terms which the parties have given specific consideration to in the negotiations are presumed to be more accurate reflection of parties’ intention than pre-printed pro forma standard terms which have not been discussed. This will apply only if there is a dispute/conflict between negotiated and pro forma in same contract. However, pro forma standard terms perfectly valid and apply otherwise
- Priority of express over implied terms. These terms may be written or oral. Express prevail unless the implied terms are obligatory statutory ones which the law does not allow to be excluded. E.g. unfair contract terms legislation
- Preference for Resonable effect over absurdity. Cts prefer meanings which give the contract reasonable effect. Cts resits meaning which would fly against common sense or produce absurdity
- Vague general terms limited by precise terms. This is another way of expressing the Ejusdem Generis rule
- Extrinsic evisence and additional terms
- Extrinsic evidence and interpretation
If contract is written then EE could be parole evidence or other written material. Parties may wish to rely on EE for one or two reasons. To prove additional terms which are not within the 4 cornrs of the written contract. Also, to interpret the terms of (written) contract. Thus, additional terms, interpretation of terms.
EE and Interpretation of terms
Cotract but many exceptions including: latent ambiguity, surrounding circumstances, trade customs, written admissions of party now denying something
- What is the test for interdict? -Sponsored by Dental office in Calgary
- A notice was served under the Land Register act 2003 s14 (2) requiring the landowner to remove a section of his fence. Pursuers maintained the fence was put up in 2004 – after the passing of the 2003 act but before it was put into force in 2005. Held, due to a misinterpretation of section 14 by the pursuer the sheriff principle concluded the pursuers were not entitled to serve a notice as there had been no contravention of the 2003 act. 
- The bill was introduced into the Scottish parliament in 2001 and passed in 2003. Part 1 of the Act and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code came into force on February 9, 2005.
- I find the explanatory notes online using the legislation website. www.legislation.gov.uk. How I done it was by searching any act I require information on. Once I have accessed that page I look at the tab under the title of the act. The explanatory notes tab is always the third option towards the right and also has a blue question mark symbol to make it easy to find. It then opens a table of contents relating to the act.
- “Everyone has the statutory rights established by this part of the Act”
These are the rights to be on (and to cross land. Land includes all land, plus inland water and intertidal foreshore, plus above or below land. The right may be exercised only: for recreational purposes; for the purposes of carrying on a relevant educational activity, or; for the purposes of carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right
could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit. Snowie -v- Stirling Council 2008 SLT (ShCt) 61
Continue reading “Interdict question”
Free movement of Goods: Protection of the health and life of humans, animals and plants. p410
42/82 Commission v France (Italian Table Wine) 1983 ECR 1013 .
Intro: Commission Regulation 1153/75 requires all commercial movement of wine within the EEC to be accompanied by a ‘wine passport’ (form VA 1). Wine imported from one member-State into another may, therefore, lawfully be checked at the frontier to ensure that it is in fact accompanied by a VA 1 form, properly completed and issued by the authorities of the exporting member-State. The import of wine may lawfully be the subject of health inspections under Article 36EEC. In the absence of any reasonable suspicion on the basis of specific evidence in a given case, such inspections, if they take the form of analysis, should however be spot checks and not systematically applied to all or most of the total imports from a particular member-State.
Case: Between April 1980 and July 1981 the French authorities directed a number of communications to the Italian authorities with regard to certain irregularities or infringements which they had discovered in respect of transports of Italian wine. Thus there were two cases in which wine arrived in France in the tanks of ships in a polluted condition, in the one case through hydrocarbons and in the other case through paraffin. In the former case the pollution was caused by the fact that conversion work on a former oil tanker had not been carried out properly. In the latter case an Italian company was suspected of having transported in road tankers alternately wine and additives for lubricating motor vehicles. Furthermore, the communications in question related in particular to irregularities discovered in the VA 1 forms accompanying two consignments of wine and to a request for information on the steps taken in Italy with regard to the filtering of wine involving the use of asbestos. For more information, visit Notary public London Continue reading “Internal EU Law (Pre Brexit)”