Tim can't remember his name. Maggie brings her elephant to work and Severine puts them on enquiry. This discussion is anything but de minimis!
Severine enjoys the bingo. Maggie goes blue and Tim eventually joins the conversation. Is he the third party?
Tim waves his hands in the air. Maggie becomes the founding member of a fan club. Severine shuts the door on it all. Check out our sponsor: https://www.reading.ac.uk/ready-to-study/study/subject-area/law-ug/mlaw
Maggie claims to be orthodox. Severine is persistent and Tim claims to be using reasonable endeavours. Was it all predictable or is there some force majeure at work? Check out our sponsor: https://www.reading.ac.uk/ready-to-study/study/subject-area/law-ug/mlaw
Three semantic magicians turn liquidated damages into penalties, primary obligations into secondary and back again – or not! Check out our new sponsor: https://www.reading.ac.uk/ready-to-study/study/subject-area/law-ug/mlaw
It’s all bad luck, chums. Severine marks them all down.
Who cares if the poms have got it wrong? Tim could be a tour guide round Gloucester docks, Severine would support the business – could Maggie foresee this? Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk
Who's Tom? Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk
Tim is speechless. Severine is handed her favourite on a platter and apparently Maggie was younger in 1977. Are there more unfair terms than expected? Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk
We're all in the same room! What could possible go wrong when we have to interpret mathematical questions? Listen to us discuss this case with our american colleagues from the 'Clauses and Controversies' Podcast - https://open.spotify.com/show/2knPFRNkU9iuPSiwtaqIb9?si=CtU0kCx-SUWACdlQ8j9RRw Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk
Tim threatens to burn it all down. Maggie is not fussy and yet Séverine does not pick up on it. Do they have capacity for more discussions? Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk/law/
Séverine finds every trace of good faith. Maggie finds it all beguiling and Tim just dumps unjust enrichment. Is it implied that they can’t agree? Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk/law/
Tim wishes it was 1934. Maggie claims we have faces for radio but Severine remains unconvinced. Can this all be incorporated into one podcast?
It's the 2-year anniversary of Unpacking Contract Law! Maggie takes her portable palm tree with her. Tim lets policies compete. Severine allows some agreement - isn't that illegal?
Severine discovers a pedagogical tool kit. Maggie admits to being contrary and Tim gets into principles whilst juggling bystanders and promisees. Can they rectify things?
#Interpretation #Construction #Mistake #Rectification Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk/law/
#Good Faith #Implied Terms For just a brief moment, Severine believes that there's agreement but Maggie explains why she's all wrong. Tim's not sure why he even attended. Is this the final episode of the podcast? We finally discuss good faith! Check out our sponsor: ncl.ac.uk/law/
In this episode, Tim thinks Maggie is going to be a difficult customer for his straw business. Severine will finish her point at all cost. Yet we all agree that the court got it wrong: it is a 'battle of terms' rather than a 'battle of forms'.
It’s our 10th episode! Severine likes Victorian decisions and Tim is a quiet fan. However, it’s all about duress when Maggie threatens to quit.