Law Students - Chat Thread

Argh, can't concentrate and I need to read up on Roman Law for my seminar tomorrow. And then I need to start worrying about my Contract case class and Public Law seminar on Tuesday...

I got a tax workshop tomorrow and do not understand a single bit of it

What year are you in?

In what sense? Can't understand any of the content? How is Tax law? It's supposed to be extremely dull (or so I have heard ).

x

I haven't done too much reading on this but does it not seem unfair that an acceptance as it is posted take precedence over a revocation which is still in postal transit? Why doesn't the revocation take effect when it is posted?

My gut reaction to the postal acceptance exception (try saying that three times fast while pissed) is similar to yours. Still, there are a few reasons behind the apparent incoherence. I don't find them compelling. You've raised an important question, and one I happen to find very interesting. Apologies if this isn't particularly clear--only just got up and am trying to write this without getting my notes out and bestrewing the desk with them.

I think it's first worth considering the mooted justifications of the postal acceptance rule.
1. At a pragmatic level, it's necessary to have some clear indication of when an acceptance sent through the post takes effect. (This much is clear, though obviously the need for *a* clear rule tells us little about whether this is the correct one. A number of academics, notably McKendrick, agree with you. I think Beatson in Anson's Law of Contract is a bit more divided.)
2. The argument put forward in Household Fire and Insurance Co. v. Grant (I think, cba to sift through my notes this time of morning--edit, checked wiki, that's the one--bear in mind this is English law, so I don't know if the Scottish precedents are different) that the post office is the agent of both the offeror and the offeree. I find this reasoning strained, at best. But, the general attitude in Household & Grant is that the offeror takes on the risk of postal acceptance unless he expressly includes it. That includes the risk that an acceptance will reach him before the revocation does.

There has been some suggestion that revocation should be permitted, as there was never a shared state of mind from an objective standpoint. There is also some suggestion that revocation should be permitted, so long as it does not permit speculation. The postal acceptance/revocation rules aren't designed to facilitate speculation in currency or commodities, for example. Finally, there's a case distinguishing Household (I'm not absolutely certain on this) which says that the postal acceptance rule shouldn't be applied where it would lead to manifest inconvenience and absurdity. I happen to think the postal acceptance rule poses the risk of manifest inconvenience and absurdity on far too regular a basis, and ought to be scrapped, but it's not as easy to consign to the dustbin as one might hope. There are problems with other approaches, which is one of the reasons why it's been settled law--though distinguished for fax, email, telex communication--for 130 years.

(I contract, too.)

Hm, very interesting. It varies on a "reasonable" time period as well. Apparently in England and in the case you citied, it was found a contract would be concluded even if the acceptance went missing the post. Lord Shand doesn't think this solution should be applied to Scotland

"It is one matter for an offerer to be contractually bound for a day or two before the offer is actually received, quite another when the acceptance is never received at all."

I agree with him tbh.

According to Woolman's Contract, it was found in Countess of Dunmore v Alexander 1830 that postal acceptance can be revoked.

May get them post-xmas.

x

.



Where did you do your LPC?

I'm considering BPP for the BPTC, if only because it's moderately cheaper and allows you to do the LLM (i.e their 'practical' version of an LLM) in several months straight after the BPTC by taking two additional modules.

Yes nearly all providers let you do the LLM after completion of the BPTC/LPC.

Her voice

She's funny too

Looking at the College of Law's site though, suggests doing the LPC or BPTC gives you 60/180 points needed for it, while the same at BPP grants you 120, and they specifically state you can do their LLM in several months, taking two modules, between completion of the BPTC and the start of a pupillage.

Also, have you got a TC lined up already?

On the topic of lecturers, how you liking Tomkins?

He's definitely man-crush material, if I got those.

On the topic of lecturers, how you liking Tomkins?

He's definitely man-crush material, if I got those.

Haven't been around much recently, what with starting third year and trying to actually do the work.

As we've recently been accepted as a society, now's a decent time to put an application to join in, and I'll accept you.

Hopefully this'll help the thread's activity levels

Tomkins book on public law is ace. His text with Turpin is meant to be good, but I'm using Bradley and Ewing (at least at the moment...).

x

With difficulty.

Essentially, I didn't attend almost at all. When it came to the exam, I mostly used the Law Express book, but then all I managed on the revision was two days. Probably not surprising that I ended up with an average 2:2 in it really.

That's impressive I may end up following in your footsteps. I have a property tutorial tomorrow at 9am which just isn't going to happen.

How's third year so far?