FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

darahiggins

tony28 wrote: »

i didnt think bernard could recover due to a lack of special relationship and even if he overcame this hurdle agagin i thought there may be an issue regarding remoteness of the damage as i didnt think based on the advice given it was reasonably forseeable that he would invest 1m without any other research-could be well wrong though

i said that because he came to him in his capacity as a financial advisor it a special relationship existed but in terms of remoteness i said that it was forseeable he would rely on the statement as sean didnt qualify it with a disclaimer but that it could be contributorily negligent of bernard to invest in something with such little research or care. i said that if caparo principles of just and reasonableness were used he would probably recover but if ward principles used he would not..............ah i dont know im confusing myself even typing this! it was my worst question

Thirdfox

tony28 wrote: »

I thought the hospital q was a vicarious liability , and whether the hospital could be liable vicariously for the professional negligence of the nurse and doctor, so had to establish that there was vicarious liability but first if there was med negligence which had major causation issues?-otherwrise thought the paper was quite nasty, defamation q wasnt particularly good, whilst issues arose about the new act it seemed very statute based and felt like i was missing out on something-nasty overall i thinks

I based it on medical negligence having studied both vicarious and medical too - though you are asked to advise the hospital the vicarious liability is a small issue.

Just using common sense - hospitals get sued all the time for the actions of their doctors and/or nurses, I do not think that the first thing they worry about is whether vicarious liability can be proven but they'll fight tooth and nail to show that their doctors didn't commit medical negligence (i.e. that's an area they might win in.)

That's my take on it.

That food question was weird! Product liability?

And I didn't go for occupier's liability either - just general negligence principles with contributory negligence thrown in (I don't think it can be classed as novus actus interveniens as it wasn't a subsequent external act (he was speeding himself)).

Consent was strange - threw in medical informed consent too - as part of "scope of consent".

Defamation - wasn't a comparison between old and new - looked at the defences of truth and honest opinion and how truth could Jennifer a bigger cash payout :P but s.31(4) probably means she'll get less

Also cheekily said first thing I'd ask her is when this occurred - if prior to Jan 1st 2010 then it'd be old common law and 61 Act :P

randomchild

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yeah your probably right, I just hope its not a solely Vicarious question and at least half the marks were for medical negligence!

I would say about half is right. First establish if they were negligent, then if the hospital could be held liable for there actions (or inactions). However, it should be noted that per kelly v st Lawrence's hospital, nurses are not subject to the rules of professional negligence!

Examinee

Anybody here know what topics have been examined in the last sitting for company??

Tips??



Tort was a petty exam. Trying to catch people out in a situation like this is uncalled for.
This added to the scheduling of exams on consecutive days makes the Law Society look cheap. Poor form.

darahiggins

Thirdfox wrote: »

I based it on medical negligence having studied both vicarious and medical too - though you are asked to advise the hospital the vicarious liability is a small issue.

Just using common sense - hospitals get sued all the time for the actions of their doctors and/or nurses, I do not think that the first thing they worry about is whether vicarious liability can be proven but they'll fight tooth and nail to show that their doctors didn't commit medical negligence (i.e. that's an area they might win in.)

That's my take on it.

That food question was weird! Product liability?

And I didn't go for occupier's liability either - just general negligence principles with contributory negligence thrown in (I don't think it can be classed as novus actus interveniens as it wasn't a subsequent external act (he was speeding himself)).

Consent was strange - threw in medical informed consent too - as part of "scope of consent".

Defamation - wasn't a comparison between old and new - looked at the defences of truth and honest opinion and how truth could Jennifer a bigger cash payout :P but s.31(4) probably means she'll get less

Also cheekily said first thing I'd ask her is when this occurred - if prior to Jan 1st 2010 then it'd be old common law and 61 Act :P

Well Somebody passed! did you do neg misstatement question? if so what outcome did you get?

Thirdfox

Maybe not - it would seem that private roads do fall under occupiers' liability... but why would they ring the police then? They'd have no jurisdiction unless a crime was in progress(?)

And wouldn't private roads be gated and inaccessible to the public generally? It seems rather odd. Well I'm preparing for EU now anyway :P

And can't believe my notes didn't mention the but for causation test - kicking myself now - that is necessary for the medical negligence question. That's probably half the question too

Nope - I did defamation, gen. negligence :P (occupiers' liability), nuisance, consent and medical negligence.

edit: at least I can console myself that I was writing from start to finish so I'd have no time to write about causation anyway :pac:

randomchild

The more i look at the exam, the more it seems designed to mislead and trick people....

Examinee

randomchild wrote: »

The more i look at the exam, the more it seems designed to mislead and trick people....

We should complain - though its probably as futile as reading the paper over again. Examinor did seek in many questions to catch people out.

NoQuarter

Thirdfox wrote: »

That food question was weird! Product liability?

(I don't think it can be classed as novus actus interveniens as it wasn't a subsequent external act (he was speeding himself)).

Yeah i just done general duty of care and focused on standard of care for the food question. My reasoning was that because the question talked about the parties crazy beliefs if they ate meat that they would meet their maker! they were not reasonable etc etc - reasonable man standard! and then threw in defective products too! So weird though, defining a "defective product" and then applying it to a runny egg!?!

I still think it was a novus actus, hayes v min for finance, the garda were chasing the motobike and because of the bike speeding it broke the chain of causation and the garda got off, thats the case i went on!

Hogzy

randomchild wrote: »

The more i look at the exam, the more it seems designed to mislead and trick people....

Examinee wrote: »

We should complain - though its probably as futile as reading the paper over again. Examinor did seek in many questions to catch people out.

You really do have to be on the ball in these exams. Just like solicitors have to be on the ball in recognising their clients issues. If you miss an issue then your client is screwed.

It would be interesting to put a solicitor into our situation and see if they could pass. I would think its very much like the driving test. Once you pass you never think about driving the same way you did while preparing for the test.

Thirdfox

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yeah i just done general duty of care and focused on standard of care for the food question. My reasoning was that because the question talked about the parties crazy beliefs if they ate meat that they would meet their maker! they were not reasonable etc etc - reasonable man standard! and then threw in defective products too! So weird though, defining a "defective product" and then applying it to a runny egg!?!

I still think it was a novus actus, hayes v min for finance, the garda were chasing the motobike and because of the bike speeding it broke the chain of causation and the garda got off, thats the case i went on!

But in this case wouldn't the analogy be - if he hit the speed bump - then ignited his jetpack on his car :P to go even faster?

The actual event happened at the time of impact between car and bump - he was speeding before this happened.

In Hayes v. Min for Fin - Gardai started pursuit (hitting the bump in our case) and then he started doing crazy stuff on the bike which was the NAI - this happening after the Gardai started - whereas our case the speeding was before the "main event" as it were.

Just like - you jump into a lion cage at night when lions should be locked up - they're not... You jumping in isn't a NAI (in my opinion) - it's huge huge contributory negligence to what eventually happens when a lion meets a human face to face but then if the rescuers came along and dropped you into the crocodile pen after retrieving you, that would be a NAI and you'd be quite an unfortunate person :P

Anyway - no use worrying about it now It's all in the hands of the tort god now!

Jev/N

randomchild wrote: »

However, it should be noted that per kelly v st Lawrence's hospital, nurses are not subject to the rules of professional negligence!

Ah crap.... I hope this doesn't affect my answer too much! I still said she was more than likely negligent :pac:

NickDrake

Examinee wrote: »

We should complain - though its probably as futile as reading the paper over again. Examinor did seek in many questions to catch people out.

An exam should be about testing an individual to his/her knowledge of the subject and not to catch some one out.

Very petty. I wonder if the exam was set by someone else as the overall feel seemed different to previous exams

NickDrake

Hogzy wrote: »

You really do have to be on the ball in these exams. Just like solicitors have to be on the ball in recognising their clients issues. If you miss an issue then your client is screwed.

It would be interesting to put a solicitor into our situation and see if they could pass. I would think its very much like the driving test. Once you pass you never think about driving the same way you did while preparing for the test.

I get what you are saying. But a solicitor does not have 40mins with a no books/cases/legislation on hand to advise a client. He has time to decide the best outcome to take.

Therefore in my opinion the some aspects of the exam was out to catch people rather than examine them

Hogzy

NickDrake wrote: »

Therefore in my opinion the some aspects of the exam was out to catch people rather than examine them

True, these exams are just a culling process though. Separate the men from the boys if you will.

Becky55

hey cud anyone point me out to where in the eu blackstones does it mention the LTEU, i hav the new edition and i cant find it, my brain is complete mush at this stage so i no its prob staring me in the face, any help wud be appreciated,

i hope der is light at the end of this dark FE1 tunnel:(

Jev/N

Becky55 wrote: »

hey cud anyone point me out to where in the eu blackstones does it mention the LTEU, i hav the new edition and i cant find it, my brain is complete mush at this stage so i no its prob staring me in the face, any help wud be appreciated,

I haven't a clue what the LTEU is? What's it stand for?

law86

Becky55 wrote: »

hey cud anyone point me out to where in the eu blackstones does it mention the LTEU, i hav the new edition and i cant find it, my brain is complete mush at this stage so i no its prob staring me in the face, any help wud be appreciated,

i hope der is light at the end of this dark FE1 tunnel:(

It's at the back, just before the TFEU, page 608,at least that's the page number in my version. It's the Consolidated Treaty of the European Union.

Jev/N

Did she mean the TEU?

law86

Yup, some of the lecturers call it the LTEU ie post-Lisbon. It's all very confusing.

Jev/N

Ah OK, thanks for that, I was confused for a sec!

The TEU in the 21st edition is at the front, just before the TFEU

JCJCJC

Anybody got tips/predictions for contract this week? I have been going through the March 2010 paper, each of the four problems were based very closely on specific fact patterns from actual cases. One was a case called Sowell from 1939 (mistake as to identity) which doesn't even appear in Ray Friel's book, some hope of knowing about it then if you rely mainly on your one book. Is this a characteristic of this examiner I wonder?

This is my second time doing contract - I only got 45 in it in the Spring, a proper bugger:P.

JC

NoQuarter

LTEU (lisbon treaty EU) is the prefix they use in the interim of the changeover of the treaty numbers. Ironically its meant to stop confusion!

Examinee

Tips for Company?

blathblath

after today's tort paper guys I really think tips in general are uselesS! Even if the topic comes up it could be phrased in such a way you won't even be sure it is what they are asking! All nighter for company on the cards!

Examinee

blathblath wrote: »

after today's tort paper guys I really think tips in general are uselesS! Even if the topic comes up it could be phrased in such a way you won't even be sure it is what they are asking! All nighter for company on the cards!

You have a good point. Good old O'Malley isn't so bad though. You wouldn't happen to have the details of the topics asked in the last sitting (or two even) by any chance? Can't get a hold of an exam grid.

Lots yet to do too.

JCJCJC

blathblath wrote: »

after today's tort paper guys I really think tips in general are uselesS! Even if the topic comes up it could be phrased in such a way you won't even be sure it is what they are asking! All nighter for company on the cards!

Well, Griffiths' man tipped animal torts in March, it didn't come then but that made it even more likely this time, I had it studied thankfully, although on suggesting reforms I was a bit creative. My angle was that a farmer with cows, horses and sheep has an unfair edge in liability on a farmer with llamas, mink or ostriches etc., and there is no statute law on exotic pets.

Defamation had to come, again it wasn't on the March paper. it was either a new v old essay or else a problem, and it was on the syllabus specifically this time so somebody in the law soc finally realised there is a new act. Given the Betfair case dealt with chat-room defamation last year, it was not so far off the wall. General negligence is always there, per the GC tips again. Occupiers Liability and Product liability are to a large extent statute-based, so if defamation was likely they became less likely - you wouldn't expect three questions on three small acts.

I thought the food question was professional negligence - duty and standard of care. Did he act as a reasonably competent restaraunteur would have acted? Was he qualified - family restaurant sounded a warning - was he approved or accredited? Raw eggs are edible, uncooked eggs are edible - mayonnaise, etc so the salmonella was perhaps a novus actus.
The bacon fat caused no harm that medical science recognises, so where's the tort? Was reckless infliction of emotional distress foreseeable? How did the dozy bitch know what bacon fat tasted like anyway? ;-) The bacon fat was a red herring I think. I ended by saying I hope he had an indemnity clause in his contract :P

JC

Chouette

Examinee wrote: »

We should complain - though its probably as futile as reading the paper over again. Examinor did seek in many questions to catch people out.

Very nervous about Constitutional now. The exams are getting tougher every time.

Chouette

OisinT wrote: »

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

Thanks for the response.

If the non-delegation doctrine doesn't apply to purely administrative acts, would that mean that the fishing ban is permissible, just like the restricted access to Skellig Mhichil was considered administrative in Casey and therefore not covered by the doctrine, both these cases being considered policy decisions?

Confused...

brian__foley

Chouette wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

If the non-delegation doctrine doesn't apply to purely administrative acts, would that mean that the fishing ban is permissible, just like the restricted access to Skellig Mhichil was considered administrative in Casey and therefore not covered by the doctrine, both these cases being considered policy decisions?

Confused...

It means you have to discuss it and have an ability to discuss what the cases really mean by way of authority and whether (on the assumption you view such acts as outside of the doctrine) this is a good thing or not. Avoid using words like "policy decisions" as such a label is really correct nor the issue at all. They are still legal decisions, but they just may not be the type of legal decisions which are caught by Article 15.

You're probably open to the criticism of being too formal here. It's not that the non-delegation does or doesn't apply or that things not covered by it are ipso facto political (and non-legal) issues. It's a point that is open for discussion but you really have to know the cases well enough to know that these kind of things are raised especially in the "recent" (i.e. post 2004) cases. There are many of these "new" issues that have found their way onto the exam and its not really that people can't stop them per se, but that they simply have not done the law to enable them to see them and this is primarily what explains the invective in the examiners reports - i.e. knowledge "cutting off".