FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Hogzy

Has anyone received their examination number yet?
I received confirmation of my payment but i have not gotten any letter with my exam number and im getting quite worried now as there is less than 2 weeks to go.

JessieJ

Hogzy wrote: »

Has anyone received their examination number yet?
I received confirmation of my payment but i have not gotten any letter with my exam number and im getting quite worried now as there is less than 2 weeks to go.

Nope!

page1

Hogzy wrote: »

Has anyone received their examination number yet?
I received confirmation of my payment but i have not gotten any letter with my exam number and im getting quite worried now as there is less than 2 weeks to go.

Same here

randomchild

Neither have I.

Jev/N

They'll arrive sometime this week I'd imagine. I'm not far from the Law Society and haven't gotten anything either, I wouldn't worry too much

NoQuarter

Every day I see people panic about the exams on this thread and it makes me nervous about leaving my study too late and not having covered enough.

Then I see people panic about not getting an exam number with a whole 2 weeks to go and it makes me feel good because it reminds me that you all panic for ridiculous things and therefore I have plenty of time left to study!!

Makes sense in my brain anyways!

pansoul

Hello all.

In relation to EU, specifically section 13 of the syllabus on Private International Law/recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, I was just wondering what people are covering?

Of the previous questions I've seen, the examinable parts seem to be A. 2-5 of Brussels I. Is that it?

I've no notes for this part of the course so I'd be grateful if someone could give an outline of the areas to cover so that I have a bit of direction. Thank you kindly.

dinobeano

king-stew wrote: »

Every day I see people panic about the exams on this thread and it makes me nervous about leaving my study too late and not having covered enough.

Then I see people panic about not getting an exam number with a whole 2 weeks to go and it makes me feel good because it reminds me that you all panic for ridiculous things and therefore I have plenty of time left to study!!

Makes sense in my brain anyways!

LOVE IT!

Chuckler

dinobeano wrote: »

LOVE IT!

So I've only really started studying now. Panic? What panic? Its like the Irish Economy. We're going nowhere at the moment but all we have is hope to get us along.

rant over.!

runfortheborder

"Specific performance proceedings should also include a plea for damages, so that if the Court decides not to grant specific performance, the plaintiff has a ‘fall back’ position and can ask the Court to award damages instead"

Anyone any comment on this?

Is this how it works in practice? I just think that by acknowledging that damages could suffice you could be defeating your claim for SP

Chuckler

runfortheborder wrote: »

"Specific performance proceedings should also include a plea for damages, so that if the Court decides not to grant specific performance, the plaintiff has a ‘fall back’ position and can ask the Court to award damages instead"

Anyone any comment on this?

Is this how it works in practice? I just think that by acknowledging that damages could suffice you could be defeating your claim for SP

I don't think so. Damages is indeed a fall back remedy re-examined in Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll Stores. In
this case the House of Lord rejected a claim for specific performance even though it accepted it would be difficult to quantify damages.

Read the Irish Cases of:

Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarkets
Dakota Packaging Ltd v APH Manufacturing BV.

Chuckler

Chuckler wrote: »

I don't think so. Damages is indeed a fall back remedy re-examined in Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll Stores. In
this case the House of Lord rejected a claim for specific performance even though it accepted it would be difficult to quantify damages.

Read the Irish Cases of:

Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarkets
Dakota Packaging Ltd v APH Manufacturing BV.

This is really in relation to contracts requiring supervision which the Courts loathe for obvious reasons.

Mshellster

Any good articles/summary on this that people know of or any general ideas what to look at/focus on for exam type situations?

RogerF

Anyone interested in some extra cash giving grinds I need them

If So please email me.

Roger.

mirm

Am I silly to leave out defamation? So far I've covered Negligence principles, product liability, vicarious liability, occupiers liability, trespass, nuisance, rylands. and psychological shock. Is this enough or would I really need to put defamation with this in order to be safe? Thanks!!

Jev/N

mirm wrote: »

Am I silly to leave out defamation? So far I've covered Negligence principles, product liability, vicarious liability, occupiers liability, trespass, nuisance, rylands. and psychological shock. Is this enough or would I really need to put defamation with this in order to be safe? Thanks!!

Although you're not guaranteed Defamation will come up, I would include it in your study as it's a near-certainty for the exam.

Put it this way, if you haven't done it and it comes up, you'll have a choice of 5 questions from 7, or even 5 from 6 is another question doesn't appear.

Essentially you want the best choice possible

Pat.Kenny

mirm wrote: »

Am I silly to leave out defamation? So far I've covered Negligence principles, product liability, vicarious liability, occupiers liability, trespass, nuisance, rylands. and psychological shock. Is this enough or would I really need to put defamation with this in order to be safe? Thanks!!

I'm covering defamation (or at least trying to piece it together!) just cause it tends to come up most years and it didn't in the last sitting which apparently suprised a good few people considering the new Act and all. I'm thinking of leaving out employer's liability and vicarious liability as they both came up last year but don't know if that's wise or not. Also trying to figure out what other chapters I can drop from Tort but don't want to shoot myself in the foot either and have no choice in the exam!

NickDrake

I would leave out defamation for sure. Its a huge are and you are not even guaranteed a question.

Would not leave out employers liability or vic liability. Two very important areas.

Jev/N

NickDrake wrote: »

I would leave out defamation for sure. Its a huge are and you are not even guaranteed a question.

Would not leave out employers liability or vic liability. Two very important areas.

I'd be careful about this as Employers, Vicarious and Product Liabilities (together) sit somewhere in the same probability range as Defamation.

Put it this way, studying those 3 together might only garner one question on the actual paper or even none as in October '09 so in light of the new 2009 Act and the fact that it didn't appear last time around, Defamation is just as necessary a topic.

I know past papers aren't everything to go by, but they do provide a good insight into importance of topics, and on that basis Defamation is one of the most important.

More topics with less knowledge is better than less topics with more knowledge for these exams, trust me.

page1

Nothing is guaranted obviously but it would be shocking if defamation didnt come up this time either. I sat tort at last sitting and spent ages on defamation and checked the paper about 10 times trying to find the question on it and the one on Rylands too !!!

NickDrake

page1 wrote: »

Nothing is guaranted obviously but it would be shocking if defamation didnt come up this time either. I sat tort at last sitting and spent ages on defamation and checked the paper about 10 times trying to find the question on it and the one on Rylands too !!!

Why would Rylands come up?? It is a dying area of law.

It was shocking that Defamation didnt come up last time with the new Act so it is not guaranted this time either.

mirm

page1 wrote: »

Nothing is guaranted obviously but it would be shocking if defamation didnt come up this time either. I sat tort at last sitting and spent ages on defamation and checked the paper about 10 times trying to find the question on it and the one on Rylands too !!!

Rylands has not been on the paper since 2003 or something and, could this be the year? Pure economic loss came up last year so I think its fair to say the Nervous Shock has a good chance of being on the paper this year.

NickDrake

mirm wrote: »

Rylands has not been on the paper since 2003 or something and, could this be the year? Pure economic loss came up last year so I think its fair to say the Nervous Shock has a good chance of being on the paper this year.

Thats because it is a dying area of law and no longer relevant really.

Chuckler

Ok here is what I think may come up (Its what I've covered anyways). Negligence principles, Trespass, Nuisance, Defamation, Vicarious / employers liability, Manufacturers liability for products, Nervous Shock and the Economic Torts (Passing off, Pure Economic Loss etc.). The panic attacks are starting now:eek:. What is everybody else doing?

Also, What's the score with Contract?

mirm

Chuckler wrote: »

Ok here is what I think may come up (Its what I've covered anyways). Negligence principles, Trespass, Nuisance, Defamation, Vicarious / employers liability, Manufacturers liability for products, Nervous Shock and the Economic Torts (Passing off, Pure Economic Loss etc.). The panic attacks are starting now:eek:. What is everybody else doing?

Also, What's the score with Contract?

What about Occupiers Liability?

I have most things covered for Contract including Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Misrep, Mistake, Undue Influence, Duress, Cotractual Terms, Remedies, Damages, Specific Performance, Promissory Estoppel and then a basic knowledge of the rest. I cant really condense it anymore

JJ Smith8

hey all,

I am just wondering if anyone has a sample answer for Question 1 (Institutions) April 2010 as it seems to refer to Lisbon changes? I'm willing to swap other sample answers I have or alternatively pay for the sample answer.

Thanks,
JJ

page1

Hi im just wondering am i picking this up correctly. In Art 2 TFEU it states that where Treaties confer on Union exclusive competence then only the Union may legislate, adopt binding acts in these areas.
In areas of shared competence then the MS may only exercise their competence to the extent the union has not exercised it or to the extent the union ceases to exercise it.
This seems to me that in reality the Union has exclusive competence in the areas of shared competence should it wish to exercise it and the MS have no real power in the areas of shared competence at all.

Forgive me if im stating the obvious.

Chuckler

mirm wrote: »

What about Occupiers Liability?

I have most things covered for Contract including Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Misrep, Mistake, Undue Influence, Duress, Cotractual Terms, Remedies, Damages, Specific Performance, Promissory Estoppel and then a basic knowledge of the rest. I cant really condense it anymore

Yeah forgot about Occupiers Liability. Sorry am going over Contract this week. Finding it tough to remember everything. It seems that you've covered everything in Contract. I'd say Privity is a good one to cover but its a real pain to get your head around also.

thecoolfreak

Would anyone be able to post what the topics that came up in the last Equity paper? Thanks

JessieJ

What topics are ye guys covering for Property? I'm so sick of studying!