UOLLB First Class Law Notes®

Are you Ready for Law Exams? 📚 Move on to High-Performance Study Notes before it's Too Late. 🔥 Our Notes are Written to Simplify Difficult Concepts in Digestible Bullet Points, Support by Case Law and Statute Law in Memorable Sequence. 💎 Revolutionising Your Study Method and Exam Strategy while Giving you Peace of Mind and Greater Confidence! Your Perfect Companion for Open-book and Closed-book Exams: ✅ Diagrams and charts ✅ Clear and succinct definitions ✅ Statutory provisions ✅ Case summaries ✅ Rules and exceptions ✅ Terminology ✅ Case law ✅ Law essay guide ✅ Problem question guide ✅ Structured explanations ✅ Exam-focused 🔥 Get INSTANT Access to Download Print-Ready Mobile-Friendly Law Notes 🔥 Law exams are coming. Don't wait until it's too late! Click here 👉 uollb.com #LLB #LLM #SQE

R v Wilson [1997] QB 47 is a well-known case in English criminal law decided by the Court of Appeal, establishing the rule that consent to acts that may cause actual bodily harm is a valid consent. It was distinguished from R v Brown [1993], where consent was not a valid defence in sado-masochistic activities causing grievous bodily harm.

Promissory estoppel usually applies where a contractual relationship is already in place or where a formal contract is absent but the conduct between the parties suggests a reliance on a promise.

In England and Wales, there are three main types of property ownership: freehold, leasehold, and commonhold, each with distinct legal characteristics.

Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine in contract law that prevents a party from going back on a promise, even if the promise was made without formal consideration (a key element of binding contracts). The doctrine is applied in cases where enforcing strict contractual rights would be unjust or inequitable.

Only 44% of candidates passed #SQE1. This is the lowest pass rate ever! Do not sit the #SQE without preparation, even if you are a law graduate. Your law programme did not cover the entire SQE syllabus, nor did it adequately prepare you to answer SQE questions. You learned to write essays and answer problem questions but these are not what you need to do in SQE1. If you are not a law graduate, DO NOT take the SQE without at least 1-2 years of preparation. Check out our Essential Advice for SQE1. Avoid some common mistakes most candidates make. https://lnkd.in/eKbkVsfb You need to do more mock practice. Check out our SQE Mock Exam with detailed explanations. https://lnkd.in/eMNAH_vq You will also find our SQE Preparation Package useful. https://lnkd.in/eRS4rzYp We are developing a more cost-effective SQE Revision Package. Stay tuned.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine in English law that prevents a party from going back on a promise, even if there is no formal consideration for the promise, as long as certain conditions are met. It is used to prevent unfairness or injustice, where one party relies on the promise of another and suffers detriment as a result.

Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents someone from going back on a promise relating to rights over property when the other party has relied on that promise to their detriment. It is often invoked when there is no formal agreement or contract, but one party has been led to believe he will receive an interest in property and has acted upon this belief, to his disadvantage.

Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine in English property law that prevents a landowner from going back on an assurance or promise he has made, where another person has relied on that promise to his detriment. Thorner v Major [2009] A case where the claimant worked on a farm for many years believing he would inherit it, based on the landowner’s indirect assurances. Gillett v Holt [2001] The court found proprietary estoppel when a farmer promised his employee that he would inherit the farm, and the employee worked there for many years based on this assurance. Proprietary estoppel plays an important role in situations where formal legal rights over land have not been properly documented but equity demands recognition of the claimant’s expectations.

The maxim of equity refers to the general principles or guidelines that courts of equity traditionally followed to ensure justice and fairness in legal proceedings. These maxims guide the application of equitable remedies like injunctions, specific performance, and equitable estoppel, ensuring that justice is done in cases where the strict application of law might lead to unfair results.