- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
I am slightly confused looking at BPP answers to in the revision kit. When using a case as an example, do you need to go into brief details of the case or is it just OK to state the case, for example, “alteration of the articles of association will be invalid if the majority were blatantly seeking to advantage them selves, as in the case of Brown V British Steel” or “If shares are issued at a discount, the company cannot enforce the agreement against the alottee, if the alottee takes the share then the full nominal value plus interest will be payable as in the case of Ooregum Gold Mining”
Please advise.
Absolutely NO NEED to go into details.
The one possible exception is where the facts are SO SIMILAR to an existing case that you could say “The facts in the question are virtually identical to the facts in the case Fisher v Bell. In that case ……
Applying the decision from the Fisher case to the scenario in the question, it would appear that ….”
But that type of question is very rare!
(I thought it was Brown v British Abrasive Wheel)
OK?
Thank you very much for clearing this confusion. It means a lot. However you have just highlighted another query. Yes it was Brown V British Abrasive Wheel! Would we be penalised for making that sort of mistake, because it is easy to remember the first part of the case but not the last. And what do we do if we can remember only a part of the case, do we state it or have to describe the case?
Thank You
You won’t be penalised, even if all you put is the “the Brown case” or even just “in a decided case”
Otherwise, you’re welcome
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.