FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

law86

Hi, anyone know what happens if you don't go in to one of the exams you are signed up for? I signed up for five but dropped one as I just didn't have the time and I'm wondering if I need to brave rush hour traffic on Monday morning to sit there for 45 minutes or not. Can't see any specific reference to the consequences of a no-show on the Law Soc website, unless it's to the fourth subject. Thanks and good luck everyone.

Jev/N

law86 wrote: »

Hi, anyone know what happens if you don't go in to one of the exams you are signed up for? I signed up for five but dropped one as I just didn't have the time and I'm wondering if I need to brave rush hour traffic on Monday morning to sit there for 45 minutes or not. Can't see any specific reference to the consequences of a no-show on the Law Soc website, unless it's to the fourth subject. Thanks and good luck everyone.

I don't think there's any issue, TBH I'd say they're happy to pocket the cash (unfortunately)

Pat.Kenny

Am I being extremely foolish leaving out the chapters on Breach of statutory duty/negligence regarding public authorities and builders/parties to tort actions and some of economic torts for Tort? Trying to cut down some of the chapters and focus on the big ones, I don't mind if this leaves me slightly short options wise but would these be chapters that tend to bleed into alot of other problem questions and thus I'd be silly to ignore them? Thanks all

Brian010

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Am I being extremely foolish leaving out the chapters on Breach of statutory duty/negligence regarding public authorities and builders/parties to tort actions and some of economic torts for Tort? Trying to cut down some of the chapters and focus on the big ones, I don't mind if this leaves me slightly short options wise but would these be chapters that tend to bleed into alot of other problem questions and thus I'd be silly to ignore them? Thanks all

Apparently statutory duty rarely comes up. If it came up it might be part of problem question. Public Authorities Liability is really short I think. It doesn't really come up but if you have a basic knowledge of Siney, Ward, Sunderland, Glencar and Beatty you'd be grand just in case it popped up. I wouldn't say you be silly to ignore them. Maybe just have an outline knowledge of parties to an action as it could be in a problem.

I'm leaving out Occupiers Liability, Defective Products, Defective Premises, Statutory Duty, Survival of Actions on Death and State Liability. I think it's near impossible to do everything. There are hundreds of cases and it's hard to memorize so many.

What are people leaving out? I just hope my choices don't come back and bite me.

mirm

Brian010 wrote: »

Apparently statutory duty rarely comes up. If it came up it might be part of problem question. Public Authorities Liability is really short I think. It doesn't really come up but if you have a basic knowledge of Siney, Ward, Sunderland, Glencar and Beatty you'd be grand just in case it popped up. I wouldn't say you be silly to ignore them. Maybe just have an outline knowledge of parties to an action as it could be in a problem.

I'm leaving out Occupiers Liability, Defective Products, Defective Premises, Statutory Duty, Survival of Actions on Death and State Liability. I think it's near impossible to do everything. There are hundreds of cases and it's hard to memorize so many.

What are people leaving out? I just hope my choices don't come back and bite me.

I dont know if I would recommend leaving out Defective Products as isnt it supposed to be a favourite of the current examiner, but having said that if the above seems all that you are leaving out u should be fine. I wouldnt worry too much either about the breach of statutory duty, I havent done it either. I have covered pretty much everything besides the breach of statutory duty and medical negligence, I think I should have enough choice without covering them.

Good luck everyone!!!

law_lady

Off to Dublin now, with a suitcase that's 90% notes and a jumper! Reckon I'll be stuck without this forum for the next while, which is a shame. Thanks for all the help and best of luck to all doing Tort tomorrow!

bbbb

Hi There,

I know its late notice but could anyone tell me what questions came up on the tort paper in the summer this year. Downloaded the papers from the law soc but still haven't managed to receive them - typical!

Would really appreciate it - thanks in advance.

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow!

moppet

hi all, best of luck anyone on tomorrow, am sitting equity and property they are my last two, and have a mental block when it comes to property in particular, can anyone advise if you were a gambling man what are you going for??

ananas

I am a bit confused as to question 1 October 2008 Contract re an offer on Aer Lingus website for fares to US for €15.99- which was supposed to be €1599. I know that this is based on an Aer Lingus offer made online in 2008. In 2003 when a similar mistake was made they honoured the agreement, but did they refuse to honour it in 2008 based on mutual mistake?

Any help very much appreciated

Hogzy

ananas wrote: »

I am a bit confused as to question 1 October 2008 Contract re an offer on Aer Lingus website for fares to US for €15.99- which was supposed to be €1599. I know that this is based on an Aer Lingus offer made online in 2008. In 2003 when a similar mistake was made they honoured the agreement, but did they refuse to honour it in 2008 based on mutual mistake?

Any help very much appreciated

I think it was unilateral mistake or mutual mistake. Cant remember the wording of the question but as far as i am aware they wouldnt have to honor it because it was a mistake.

Examinee

Hello everybody,

Would somebody be kind enough to post the topics examined in Tort for the last sitting or two.
Trying to prioritise topics - not an easy task!

Examinee

bbbb wrote: »

Hi There,

I know its late notice but could anyone tell me what questions came up on the tort paper in the summer this year. Downloaded the papers from the law soc but still haven't managed to receive them - typical!

Would really appreciate it - thanks in advance.

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow!

Did you manage to find out what were examined? I am trying to find out too.
Thanks.

NoQuarter

Last year was;

duty of care
causation/remoteness
pure economic loss
employers liability
vicarious liability
products liability
occupiers liability
trespass to the person

Examinee

Cheers - when you say last year - do you mean the April sitting or Oct 2009. Thanks again.

NickDrake

Good luck to all tomo in tort. Lets hope it is a fair paper for us.

NoQuarter

Examinee wrote: »

Cheers - when you say last year - do you mean the April sitting or Oct 2009. Thanks again.

Sorry, yeah april!

Becky55

Hey guys, really finding constitutional law tough, just wondering if there was people out der who has maybe passed it or are sitting the exam with some words of wisdom of how to get through it, i feel like im hittin a brick wall with it, and its way tougher than any of the rest of the exams, but if anyone had any tips regards the constitutional exam itself (ya i no even at this late stage) i would really appreciate it.

also its ok to highlight and tab the bunreacht na heireann book isnt it?? from my reading of the info i received from the law soc it says its ok.

*best of luck to all

Dandelion6

Becky55 wrote: »

also its ok to highlight and tab the bunreacht na heireann book isnt it??

Yes highlights and tabs are fine.

Examinee

Hello - wondering if anybody might be able to post topics that were examined in company in April (and last Autumn).
Thanks.

Good luck for tort. Heading there now.

CFOLEY85

Best of luck to everyone today. I hope all goes well!

Chouette

brian__foley wrote: »

Question 3 is basically a form of seeing if people read Casey v Minister for Arts etc. The issue is really about the non-application of the non-delegation doctrine to administrative powers - i.e. the view that it only covers a power to make regulations in the formal sense, rather than anything less than that. Casey was also argued on livlihood grounds, but an "attack" wasn't even established, yet alone an unjust attack.

This hits on the other main problem with the exam - not spotting the issues. This may sound harsh, but you can't but spot the issues if you understand the case-law. The issues on the exam are pretty such the same as the issues that prompt all the cases you have to study and know about.

HI Brian

Can you clarify a bit more what is meant by an administrative action? In Casey, it is the preservation and portection of national monuments, but how is this administrative?

Also in the question at hand, is the introduction of a fishing ban considered administrative?

Thanks

Chouette

Hey guys,

What would you go about answering Question 8, October 2009?

Does this question related to equality? Or socio-economic rights?

It seems to come up every few sittings. Grateful for any responses.

FreudianSlippers

Chouette wrote: »

HI Brian

Can you clarify a bit more what is meant by an administrative action? In Casey, it is the preservation and portection of national monuments, but how is this administrative?

Also in the question at hand, is the introduction of a fishing ban considered administrative?

Thanks

Administrative actions are carried out by administrative bodies, i.e. government bodies. If the administrative action is considered ultra vires then one has the ability (or ought to have the ability) to judicially review the decision.
So, is the implementation of a fishing ban ultra vires the powers of that body?

Hope that's what you're asking

pink101

Chouette wrote: »

Hey guys,

What would you go about answering Question 8, October 2009?

Does this question related to equality? Or socio-economic rights?

It seems to come up every few sittings. Grateful for any responses.

this has to do with delegated legislation and the principles and policy test set out in City View -v- Anco other cases are Harvey -v- Minister for Social Welfare, Cooke -v- Walsh, McDaid -v- sheehy and DPP -v- Leontjava.

Hope this helps

NoQuarter

Well, tort was incredibly hard i thought!

The issues were so hard to spot!

Company tomorrow! woot

Jev/N

Yeah Tort wasn't that easy IMO. The essays with a twist were harder than previous years without a doubt. I avoided all but one of them as a result!

Brian010

That was a tough paper. Intentional tort consent essay was avoided. Was that a vicarious liability question disguised as medical negligence, the other way round or a mix of both!?

NoQuarter

Jev/N wrote: »

Yeah Tort wasn't that easy IMO. The essays with a twist were harder than previous years without a doubt. I avoided all but one of them as a result!

Unfortunatly i hadnt studied the nuisance topic which looked easy enough!

I had a little cry mid exam thinking about the thread on this board about defamation online!! WHY COULDNT I HAE JUST READ THAT THREAD!!! :P

NoQuarter

Brian010 wrote: »

That was a tough paper. Intentional tort consent essay was avoided. Was that a vicarious liability question disguised as medical negligence, the other way round or a mix of both!?

I assumed it was trespass to the person with the defence of consent?

like boxing, surgery etc etc??

Jev/N

Brian010 wrote: »

Was that a vicarious liability question disguised as medical negligence, the other way round or a mix of both!?

I thought it was both.

The defamation one kinda pissed me off as I had expected an essay so I had to waffle the question relying on a majority of statute