COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NORl\1AN MANLEY, HUGH WOODING AND EUGENE DUPUCH LAW SCHOO~S ENTRANCE EXAMINATION

July 13, 2004

PAPER I Contract Real Property Criminal Law Tort Equity

Instructions to Students: (a) (b) (c)
(d)

Time: 3 Hours Answer FIVE questions; one from each of the subject areas. Each Question must be answered on a separate answer booklet. It is not necessary to transcribe the questions you attempt.

PLEASE REMAIN SEATED UNTIL YOUR SCRIPT HAS BEEN COLLECTED

39

George sells the racquet to Kwesi for $175. Discuss. the parties must have agreed on all material terms and it must not be too vague in any material particular". George sends an e-mail from his home computer to Hilda which states: "I heard from Ivan. as a favour to you. Ivan immediately relates this information to Hilda. I'll not deal with anyone else during that time. George calls Ivan to complain that Hilda is not yet "ready" to buy the racquet and that he will sell it to Joan if she is willing to pay his price. Joan is also interested in buying it so I'll hold this offer open for one week and. and I would be willing to let you have it for $200. I I f 40 . . your cousin. Advise Hilda." She also writes. but George is not at the office. [b] In unilateral contracts." Hilda replies to George on December 17. "accepting his kind offer. having taken his annual Christmas leave. 2. . also bye-mail. Next day. that you are looking for a good squash racket. the offer cannot be revoked. Hilda sends a fax to George at his office accepting his "offer of December 15". That very night. Would you be so kind as to let me pay you for the racquet after the Christmas Holidays? I'm afraid I could not buy it otherwise!" On receiving Hilda's message. On December 15. once performance of the requested act has begun. I have one here that I have used only once. "but I am not in funds at the moment. Answer EITHER [aJ OR [b] : [a] "For a contract to be enforceable. Critically discuss this proposition.LAW OF CONTRACT 1.

The following events have occurred since 1989: (i) In 1990. 2. Later that year. In 1992. Martin moved in that same year." Discuss. was severely injured. After some ofhis chickens were stolen by thieves and attacked by stray dogs. Martin built a galvanise zinc fence to protect his chickens. In 1989. The garden of Ackee Tree House adjoins Guinep Fann. Oscar. REAL PROPERTY I. at the bottom of the hill. and the right of the plaintiff to be protected from interference with his enjoyment of his land. Discuss. "The main problem in the law of private nuisance is to strike a balance between the right of the defendant to use his land as he wishes. which floods during heavy rain. The owner of Guinep Farm is Don. Martin excavated part of Guinep Farm and diverted the gully further from the boundary ofAckee Tree House. He intends to use the land for a housing development as soon as he gets planning permission. John claims that his brakes had failed and that he was not at fault. after a hurricane washed away some of the garden of Ackee Tree House. told his cousin Martin that he could live in Ackee Tree House until he was able to purchase it from him. demarcating the survey boundary. Martin began cultivating vegetables on the part of Guinep Fann which was on his side of the gully. who was not wearing his seatbelt. He was told that he had to do that ifhe had any hope of getting a mortgage since the bank would refuse to give a mortgage because the house appeared threatened by the gully.LAW OF TORTS ]. John lost control of the vehicle and. John was driving his taxi with Sid as a passenger in the rear. runs between the garden of Ackee Tree House and Guinep Farm. A gully. (ii) (iii) 41 . the owner of Ackee Tree House (registered land). it mounted a banle Sid. he built a chicken coop on the Guinep Fann land and reared chickens. At the top of a steep hill.

1 EQUITY 1. 42 . Domuch and Macro Resorts Ltd. It was also agreed that Noisemongers would not perform anywhere else on Wednesday nights for the duration of the agreement. the owner of Guinep Farm. that they did not intend to "honour the agreement any further" as they wished to be to perfonn wherever they chose on Wednesday nights. for Noisemongers to appear every Wednesday night for a period of one year ending December 2004. Don did not answer the letter. Domuch wants his job back. had the land surveyed. Macro Resorts Ltd. its effect on third parties and its limits and dimensions. Noisemongers dismissed Domuch and indicated to Macro Resorts Ltd. remove the galvanise zinc fence and the chicken coop. In December 2003 Domuch. The principles can now properly be regarded as well settled. Don. have all been clearly delineated". From 1995. "Mareva injuction now sails in calm waters. concluded an agreement with Macro Resorts Ltd. The surveyors hoticed that Ackee Tree House had encroached upon a portion ofGuinep Farm. "The test is now the state of the register. Don received planning permission and commenced an action for possession of the property and ejectment of Martin from Guinep Farm. Don immediately wrote to Martin asking him to get offhis property. I 1 ! Discuss. its ancillary features and its purpose. Discuss the extent to which this statement is true in relation to land dealing under registration of titles legislation. Earlier this year. (v) I Advise Martin. is anxious to prevent Noisemongers from breaking the contract.(iv) In 2003. Martin responded offering Don to buy the portion of Guinep Farm land. As a result of his management Noisemongers became a "musical force". are threatening to take legal action against Noisemongers Advise Noisemongers. 2. on behalf of Noisemongers. Its entitlement and application. 2. In June 2004. Domuch managed the Noisemongers band under a ten-year contract of employment. not the purchaser's mind".

the two men fled the scene. He knew that Ben had previous convictions for violent crimes. The plan was to commit the robbery on Weed with bare fists in an alley while Weed was taking his wages to the bank. before the pair could take Weed's money they heard a car siren in an adjacent street. 43 . Bill joined Ben's gang of thieves. in anger. oen told Bill that he was to join him in a robbery. Weed died from his wound. Ben searched through Weep's pockets. On the appointed day. Bill did not realise that Weed had been stabbed. Finding nothing to steal. while he was away. Two months after joining the gang. Bill went to investigate and.CRIMINAL LA 1. Discuss. took a knife from his pocket and stabbed Weed. Ben told him that unless he did so his anns and legs would be broken and that his children might one day never return home from school. When Bill returned. Bill agreed. Ben. When Bill objected. explore the circumstances in which criminal responsibility may arise from an omission to act. In fear. "7 With reference to decided cases. 2. However. Bill knocked down Weed with a punch to the jaw.

HUGH WOODING AND EUGENE DUPUCH LAW SCHOOLS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION July 14. PLEASE REMAIN SEATED UNTIL YOUR SCRIPT HAS BEEN COLLECTED. at least ONE from each Group. 2004 PAPER II Group I: Company Law Revenue Law Family Law Administrative Law Jurisprudence International Law Comparative Law Labour Law Administration of Trusts & Estates Group II: Instructions to Students: (a) (b) (c) (d) Time: 3 Hours Answer THREE questions.COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NORMAN MANLEY. Each Question must be answered on a separate answer booklet. 45 . It is not necessary to transcribe the questions you attempt.

an existing shareholder. Richard and Althea. two minority shareholders. 2. (b) Fishermen's Company Limited (FCL).. FCL has an authorised share capital of $10 million and an issued share capital of $1 million. arguably explains why. is a private company engaged in the manufacture of fishing tackle and rods. since FCL is desirous of firing 80 percent of its workforce in an attempt to rationalize its operations.GROUPl COMPANY LAW 1. seek your advice on the following issues: (i) whether the board of directors of FCL owes a duty towards its employees. who already owns 15% of the shares of FCL. "The principle of Salomon v.." Discuss. in contrast to ordinary shares. Ltd." Discuss. Salomon represents a formidable but not an insunnountable obstacle for persons desiring to ascribe criminal and civil liability to those behind the corporate shield. (ii) whether the minority shareholders have any recourse against the directors of FCL. Answer EITHER (a) OR (b) (a) "The statement that 'the attributes of a preference share are limited and defined on its birth'. the preference share is a less secure form of investment. 46 . as stated by Lord Justice Farwell in Will v. United Lankat Plantations Co. since it has been discovered that the board recently passed a resolution authorising the issue of7 million shares for the purpose ofthwarting a hostile take-over bid by Shark Company Ltd. Advise.

3. In the 1970's. Lesion. (ii) (iii) High Stakes Ltd. has not yet repaid any interest on the $1 million loan and Inland Revenue has written to JSC contending that the profit of$39 million is a "profit or gain as a result of trade" and disallowed JSC's claim to deduct the $500. Immediately. infoITIled JSC that they were likely to close their doors because of intense competition. expended $500. Joint Select Construction Ltd (JSC) is a manufacturing company specialising in the manufacture of cement blocks. However. (Duke ofWestminster v. High Stakes Ltd. loaned High Stakes Ltd. there has been a slight decline in sales. JSC purchased for investment purposes a parcel of land for $1 million. explain the effect of each of the following on the validity of a contract in French law: 1. Dol. 2. Compare and contrast the French doctrine of cause and the common law doctrine of consideration. after September 11. 4.REVENUE'LAW 1. JSC: (i) decided to sell the parcel of land for $40 million.." 6 Critically analyse this statement 2. UDespite the celebrated statement that each man has a right to arrange his own affairs so as to attract the least amount oftax.000 in 'refurbishing' the show room by replacing the wooden floor with marble and adding gold fixtures. 2. ------------COMPARATIVE LAW 1. With reference to the French Civil Code and "fa jurisprudence". Advise JSC. Erreur in substantia. and Violence. one of JSC's best customers. For several years JSC carried on a profitable business. $1 million at a favourable rate of interest. . IRe 1925) it would be dangerous on the part ofthose who advise on elaborate tax avoidance schemes to assume that there has not been a significant change in approach. In January 2002.000 expended on the showroom.

and continues to recognise. 48 . the SAA was created by a special Slaw Post-Conflict Reconstruction Act. Although legally independent from the state. It has recognised. the Anti-Flogging Coalition obtains intervener status to make arguments before the Dill High Court. These fighters detonate bombs in the capital of Slaw on a fairly regular basis. including the Anti-Flogging Coalition. Neither of these treaties has been incorporated into Dill's legal system. The State of Dill amends its Criminal Code so as to make the crime of littering punishable by flogging. Critically discuss the legal difficulties that the B!g Company may face in bringing its claim. They point to provisions of two international human rights treaties to which Dill is a party that have been interpreted as expressly prohibiting flogging." Slaw has a territorial area of approximately 1000 square kilometres and a population of 250. An extradition treaty is negotiated between Check and Slaw. the state of Check is divided into two. The Anti-Flogging Coalition lawyers argue that Dill's laws clearly violate its international human rights obligations. Check authorities recognise the existence of this new state and enter into diplomatic and trade relations with it. a private construction company from the Unified Kingdom. The new paragraph that is inserted in Section 15 states: "For the purposes of this section flogging in its traditional forms does not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. The northern half retains the name "Check" and the tiny sou~hern half emerges as the new sovereign state of "Slaw." International human rights groups. the SAA defaults on its contractual payments.000 persons. Although firmly ruled by a revolutionary leader. the Unified Kingdom. At the end of a three year civil war. The Anti-Flogging Coalition lawyers support these arguments by referring to the writings of several scholars. When a citizen is charged with the crime of littering. has not formally recognised Slaw. 2. The Big Company brings a suit against the SAA for breach of contract in the municipal courts of the Unified Kingdom. are outraged by the Dill legislative changes. The Big Company. Check.INTERNATIONAL LAW 1. No other state recognises Slaw. After the first phase of construction is completed. They also argue that such practices are prohibited under general customary international law. Dill also amends Section 15 of its Bill of Rights. enters into a lucrative contract with the Slaw Airport Authority (SAA) to build an international airport in Slaw. The Unified Kingdom's legal system is identical to that of the United Kingdom. the section guaranteeing the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment. A third state. the people of Slaw still face challenges from some remaining Check resistance fighters.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful