![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Exam tomorrow morning.
I think revision is just about done. I've managed to review the whole course, mainly by starting from the beginning and making summary notes of each unit to ensure that there wasn't anything I'd either forgotten or never really got to grips with. The last few days have mainly comprised trying to cram actual facts into my head, as opposed to broad legal theory.
Why the rote learning? Well, it's all well and good giving a broadly correct answer to a legal problem, but you do far better if you can support it with legislation and/or relevant case precedent. For example, imagine the following appears as part of a question:
Sue owns a field next to the land on which her house stands. She used to lease the field to David who keeps a horse there. She also let David park his horse-box on a hardstanding on her own land. A couple of years ago she sold the freehold of the field to David. Sue now plans to sell her house and land to Michelle. Will David have a right to park on the hardstanding?
A quick and technically correct answer would be:
David's licence to park on Sue's land was converted to an easement when she conveyed the field to him. This easement will bind future purchasers of Sue's land.
But a much better answer is:
David's licence to park on Sue's land was converted to an easement via s62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, under the rule in Wright v Macadam. The right to park a car can exist as an easement as per Hair v Gillman so long as it does not exclude Sue's use of the land (Copeland v Greenhalf). The right will take effect as a legal easement and even if not registered will bind future purchasers of Sue's land as an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act 2002.
I've counted the list of cases I've extracted as worth knowing for an exam in trusts and land law (at least to the extent of one-line summaries of the legal point involved). There are 170 of them.
I don't think I'm squeezing anything else into my brain. Time for bed.
I think revision is just about done. I've managed to review the whole course, mainly by starting from the beginning and making summary notes of each unit to ensure that there wasn't anything I'd either forgotten or never really got to grips with. The last few days have mainly comprised trying to cram actual facts into my head, as opposed to broad legal theory.
Why the rote learning? Well, it's all well and good giving a broadly correct answer to a legal problem, but you do far better if you can support it with legislation and/or relevant case precedent. For example, imagine the following appears as part of a question:
Sue owns a field next to the land on which her house stands. She used to lease the field to David who keeps a horse there. She also let David park his horse-box on a hardstanding on her own land. A couple of years ago she sold the freehold of the field to David. Sue now plans to sell her house and land to Michelle. Will David have a right to park on the hardstanding?
A quick and technically correct answer would be:
David's licence to park on Sue's land was converted to an easement when she conveyed the field to him. This easement will bind future purchasers of Sue's land.
But a much better answer is:
David's licence to park on Sue's land was converted to an easement via s62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, under the rule in Wright v Macadam. The right to park a car can exist as an easement as per Hair v Gillman so long as it does not exclude Sue's use of the land (Copeland v Greenhalf). The right will take effect as a legal easement and even if not registered will bind future purchasers of Sue's land as an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act 2002.
I've counted the list of cases I've extracted as worth knowing for an exam in trusts and land law (at least to the extent of one-line summaries of the legal point involved). There are 170 of them.
I don't think I'm squeezing anything else into my brain. Time for bed.
