Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
iamanengine wrote: »Worried that splitting my time between Equity and Company will have me failing both
I realised yesterday evening my notes for shareholder protection were totally off the mark, I had nothing on quasi-partnerships. Spent the whole evening re-writing them and lost about half the day’s study time. Dreading it.0 -
iamanengine wrote: »Worried that splitting my time between Equity and Company will have me failing both
I’m the exact same re company and contract, I’m wondering if I’m better focusing on one and winging the second rather than failing both0 -
iamanengine wrote: »Worried that splitting my time between Equity and Company will have me failing both
Imagine having contract throw into the mix too!! Busy weekend ahead!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Property
In relation to s.111 if the testator has just a spouse, the spouse has a right to half. But in a problem Q if you were to say how much they would get, would you say they get all of it? i.e. what happens with the other half?
If the testator has a child also, s.111 states the spouse gets one third. What happens with the other two-thirds? I'm presuming the spouse gets more than the child?
Thanks
0 -
law_struggles wrote: »Property
In relation to s.111 if the testator has just a spouse, the spouse has a right to half. But in a problem Q if you were to say how much they would get, would you say they get all of it? i.e. what happens with the other half?
If the testator has a child also, s.111 states the spouse gets one third. What happens with the other two-thirds? I'm presuming the spouse gets more than the child?
Thanks
Did property in October so happy to be corrected on this, but section 111 is basically in substitution of what you got in the will. So if X's estate is worth €100,000 but he only gives €30,000 of it to his wife Y, she would be entitled to €50,000 instead to meet her legal right share under section 111. In relation to what happens with the rest of it, it just gets distributed as the will says it should.
I think you're confusing it with intestacy, where there is no actual direction by the testator as to where the money should go. If X was intestate, his entire estate of €100,000 would go to his wife Y, unless they had a child (Z), in which case €66,666 would go to Y and €33,333 to Z.
The difference is there because with the legal right share there's actually a will already in place so that's where you look to see where the rest of the money goes. With intestacy this isn't the case and so all the money needs to be taken by the spouse (unless they have a child).0 -
iamanengine wrote: »Yes case law says no but you could mention in an answer that as the legality of suicide has changed this might lead the court to decide differently if a case was brought to them todayiamanengine wrote: »Yes case law says no but you could mention in an answer that as the legality of suicide has changed this might lead the court to decide differently if a case was brought to them today
I disagree with the case law, it's all frankly ancient and the courts would most likely take the view that clinical depression / bipolar etc = is a "sickness" for the purposes of DMC and that someone dying by suicide would fit the rules (considering many people with serious mental health conditions do end up dying by suicide - no doubt it would be weighing on the mind of the person giving the gift). I won't even get into Assisted Suicide cos then you're getting into very complicated stuff :pac:
If a person seemed to randomly commit suicide or put themselves in extremely risky life and death situation (in an oil field or something) then died, without any known mental health issues or proof they had none, then perhaps one could say they were not "dying" at the time. My two cents.
What's everyone's predictions for Company? I think he'll put Examinership on again, poor examinership, no love from companies IRL or on the exam. Maybe that is wishful thinking because I like it in general. Definitely Receivership / Liquidatation. I read the posts of the March 2019 paper..... :eek:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement