Law Students - Chat Thread

I would tell you them, but you never know where those Brunel mooters will be hiding .

If it was only the 'fair, just and reasonable' argument, I think I could just blag the entire moot , but I've also got to say some stuff about standard of care . Ah well, I'll either do good, or be an utter embarrassment to the university.

Isn't that slightly different? The right to re-possess is (I'm guessing) a mere equity which when validly exercised gives a right to possess, as well as the ownership which the finance house already had. The finance house couldn't sue in conversion unless they had already exercised the former right at the time of the interference with the goods, they could only sue for the damage caused to their reversionary interest.

You are not right about the right to repossess but I am not going there because that wasn't the point I was making.

All I was pointing out by use of the word "re-possess" is that the finance house isn't in possession. We treat one person, the builder, as being in a constructive or fictitious possession but we don't treat the finance house as being in a fictitious or constructive possession. Neither is really in possession.

Possession is a method of simplifying discourse by allowing a question or dispute to be resolved without having to think about (or prove) a lot of difficult but ultimately irrelevant (to the question or dispute) issues.

Ah it's the OUP/BPP thing? In which case the mooting problem has been written by one of my tutors (had him for Jurisprudence and English Legal System). Something about a cricket match and the umpire's duty? There is a rugby case that I can't remember the name of that could be useful about that duty but I'll say no more

edit: I remembered - It's either Smoldon v Whitworth or Vowles v Evans, one of those is the rugby case I was thinking of.

Yeah, it's Smoldon v Whitworth. The problem is though, I've got to argue against it . I'm starting to get a strong case against it, but I'm not too confident yet.

Don't forget you don't need to win the case to win the moot, I haven't looked at the problem or the competiton rules in detail but if it's objectively unwinnable then you shouldn't be penalised by drawing the wrong side.

On the subject of moots I managed to persuade BPP to enter the Essex Court moot, so all being well I'll get to have a go next month.

If your going to lose the actual moot though, it's better to save face by winning the case .

Woo! You might come up against me in that competition then! Well, that is if my lecturer lets us do both the moots, and my mooting partner decides to do that one as well (We're already doing two other competitions, alongside the BPP-OUP one )

I'm pretty sure I'd need someone else to beat it into me . I'm trying to beat 'duty of care' into myself, but I keep going on here procrastinating!

For tort or Criminal? I lvoed it in tort but it takes some time to get your ahead around, currently procrastinating from it in criminal myself!

Is one of the two the UKLSA one? I'm doing that one as well. If so, then a decent chance we do come up against each other as the first few rounds are 'regional' and London not too far from Surrey

Yeah, it's Smoldon v Whitworth. The problem is though, I've got to argue against it . I'm starting to get a strong case against it, but I'm not too confident yet.

It's actually better (IMO) to get the side which goes against the current law in a moot. Any fool can cite the law. You look a lot better if you can persuasively argue against the current law or demonstrate why the law is in your favour.

In this particular case, it's sort of a double edged sword. Without going into the specifics, the other guys are the appellants, so they can use that case to make a strong structured argument rather easily, whereas I've got to strengthen the first point, and rebut that case. It could work to my advantage, or it could screw me over. Won't know until after the moot.

.

Quoting NT because you seem to quite an expert on real property but anyone can answer!

We were discussing s.20A of the SOGA 1979 in class when my tutor said that the section makes a pre-paying buyer an equitable tenant in common of the identified bulk. I piped up and said that it wasn't an equitable tenancy but a legal one, but the tutor said that it wasn't possible to be a legal tenant in common. Who is right? My logic was:

1) I don't think there is a rule that you can't have a legal tenancy in common in chattels. The rule only applies to choses in action and real property (by LPA 1925 although haven't done land law yet).

2) If the seller is still the legal owner of the bulk then he will owe fiduciary duties to the buyers and that can't be right. Also if the seller still has legal title then, even if he has sold the entire bulk, he can pass a valid title by any subsequent sale, even without delivery, and without needing to rely on an exception to nemo dat.

3) If the buyer of the bulk wants to sell to a sub-buyer, then if he has an equitable rather than legal tenancy in common, this would be a disposition of an equitable interest and so need to be in writing by s.53 LPA 1925. And it seemed to me that this couldn't be right.

So who is right? Does s.20A make the buyers legal tenants in common of the bulk or equitable tenants in common?

They are legal tenants in common.

In the case of land, the trustees are required to hold as joint tenants because the legal estate is incapable of severance (s34 LPA). Where is the equivalent provision for chattels? Indeed in the case of unascertained goods in a bulk, it flies in the face of Section 20A (2) (b) which says they are to be held as tenants in common.

If they were equitable tenants in common then they would become trustees of the bulk. A subsequent transfer of a share in the bulk under Section 20B (1) (b) would not discharge that trusteeship. You could end up with trustee owners with no beneficial interest in the goods. There is no provision for that in the legislation.

Law Com. 215 which is the genesis of the Act makes no mention of equity or trusts. It is written entirely in terms of legal ownership.

About to do my LPC applications and wondering how much I have to do for the personal statement bit?

I know it's not much and I have many better things to be doing with my life, but is there an amount you have to do just out of politeness or something?

I realise this sounds daft, but don't want to risk someone getting arsey and me feeling like a total knob by somehow contriving to get rejected from the LPC.

OH NO! PLEASE don't give us thousands of pounds.