FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Hogzy

law_lady wrote: »

My sympathies to anyone with a few of these wretched exams in a row, so tough to stay going!

Question about Contract, I'm leaving out Exclusion/Exemption Clauses, Consumer Law/Sale of Goods, and Formalities of Contracts out. Am I taking too great of a risk? I might have time to do them but I just feel I've time to get what I have done really well done so I'd rather not do too much and have a lesser knowledge of everything. What are others leaving out?

Just look over Sale of Goods/ consumer law. For the sake of a 10minute read it could seriously be key in the exam.

coco13

runfortheborder wrote: »

that is probably the best way to do work experience for free actually, one day a week, I was offering to work for free during a time of desperation, recently, a very well known and solid Solicitor told me not to do it, he said it breeds resentment, and I think it would do so. But if you really need the experience that is one way of getting some experience without being , well, used.

I agree completely.

Brian010

EU announced action to be taken against France for breach of freedom of movement against thousands of Roma migrants. I think this happened a little while ago too so maybe the examiner might have a fancy for a question on freedom of movement for workers. Watch out for it!

Hogzy

Brian010 wrote: »

EU announced action to be taken against France for breach of freedom of movement against thousands of Roma migrants. I think this happened a little while ago too so maybe the examiner might have a fancy for a question on freedom of movement for workers. Watch out for it!

Would you not think its too recent? Then again i havnt got a clue when the papers are drafted so it might be relevant.

32minutes

thoought the exam was pretty tough, not as rights focussed as last time, casenotes i thought were also difficult choices so left them out.

so for q4 Johns leaky tank; inviolability of dwelling, unconstitutionally obtained evidence ? what was was the other issue as I wasn't sure ?

q5: locus standi and equality being the main issue ? also finding of invalidity.

q7: right to earn a livelihood mainly, property rights and non delegation doctrine ?

thought the courts question was also a bit rough- wrote two pages on art 37 SOP before realising i was wasting my time

pink101

thought it was a very touch paper a lot going on the first question completely confused me whether it was to do precisely with socio economic rights or explaining the powers of each organ threw the whole lot which I will probably be penalised for. thank god I had the AG done and Art 45 but thought it was a hard paper.

pink101

Finished this only Tort now to sit if I get this one. Best of luck to all for rest of exams.:

Jev/N

32minutes wrote: »

thoought the exam was pretty tough, not as rights focussed as last time, casenotes i thought were also difficult choices so left them out.

so for q4 Johns leaky tank; inviolability of dwelling, unconstitutionally obtained evidence ? what was was the other issue as I wasn't sure ?

Strict Liability and Proportionality as well I though

q5: locus standi and equality being the main issue ? also finding of invalidity.

I mentioned a tiny bit on family at the end

q7: right to earn a livelihood mainly, property rights and non delegation doctrine ?

Can't think of anything else expect proportionality here

thought the courts question was also a bit rough- wrote two pages on art 37 SOP before realising i was wasting my time

Info added....

Just realised I forgot to make any reference to compensation in Q7, d'oh!

Hogzy

Jev/N wrote: »

Info added....

Just realised I forgot to make any reference to compensation in Q7, d'oh!

+1 AGAIN.

Just thinking the Re:26 and the Planning and development case could have fitted in perfectly there. DAMMMMMMM!!!!! More F-ing marks lost!!!!!

Brian010

Hogzy wrote: »

Would you not think its too recent? Then again i havnt got a clue when the papers are drafted so it might be relevant.

Not sure really. I remember hearing the story earlier in the year. Don't know if he likes putting up topical issues either. Might be worth knowing the chapter on free movement of persons and workers well just in case.

coco13

Any suggestions of what might feature Friday? Running out of time to finish off topics now!

32minutes

Hogzy wrote: »

+1 AGAIN.

Just thinking the Re:26 and the Planning and development case could have fitted in perfectly there. DAMMMMMMM!!!!! More F-ing marks lost!!!!!

added in a one liner, for compensation didnt have time to do the re 26 employment bill vs planning and dev bill re compensation and proportionality though. I do think that it was much more livelihood centred than property centred however so not too bothered

only mentioned family in the equality question as a possible defence for the government in a hierarchal interpretation type scenario

Ruby83

32minutes wrote: »

added in a one liner, for compensation didnt have time to do the re 26 employment bill vs planning and dev bill re compensation and proportionality though. I do think that it was much more livelihood centred than property centred however so not too bothered

only mentioned family in the equality question as a possible defence for the government in a hierarchal interpretation type scenario

I didn't think compensation was relevant here at all. I mentioned that there was no differentiation between small vendors and larger ones (ie like in the Re Article 26 and Employment Equality bill case). I mentioned the common good, proportionality, non delegation, property and livelihood. I forgot to mention the fact that they based it on last years takings which I will be penalised for I'd imagine.

The fathers question, I did locus standi but I kind of flitted between equality and family and I was a bit unsure about the second bit of the question, ie if he was successful, would it help their cause. What did people write for that?

Thought it was ok overall though besides the pointless case note question which limits choices. Its not possible to prepare for that so is very unfair!

Hogzy

Ruby83 wrote: »

The fathers question, I did locus standi but I kind of flitted between equality and family and I was a bit unsure about the second bit of the question, ie if he was successful, would it help their cause. What did people write for that?

I said it would help their cause in so far as they would more than likely be able to get cohabiting opposite sex couples the same rights as cohabiting same sex couples as they "MAY" have the same social function as they are not married(OG v AG Widower and Widow have the same social function). However a single father does not have the same social function as a same/opposite sex cohabiting couple (MacMathuna v AG - Couple with 9 kids have different social function to a single parent with 9 kids.)

I could be wrong but its done now

Ruby83

Hogzy wrote: »

I said it would help their cause in so far as they would more than likely be able to get cohabiting opposite sex couples the same rights as cohabiting same sex couples as they "MAY" have the same social function as they are not married(OG v AG Widower and Widow have the same social function). However a single father does not have the same social function as a same/opposite sex cohabiting couple (MacMathuna v AG - Couple with 9 kids have different social function to a single parent with 9 kids.)

I could be wrong but its done now

That sounds like definitely a great approach. Why didn't I think of that??! I just kinda added on at the end, eh no I don't think it would help their case. It was about 12:28 at that stage though so I had gone beyond the point of caring and my hand had turned into a claw from writing!! Two down, three to go!! Took the afternoon off studying and it's amazing what fresh air and conversation can do!! Feel a bit more rejuvenated now for EU!

FavelaChic

Hogzy wrote: »

I said it would help their cause in so far as they would more than likely be able to get cohabiting opposite sex couples the same rights as cohabiting same sex couples as they "MAY" have the same social function as they are not married(OG v AG Widower and Widow have the same social function). However a single father does not have the same social function as a same/opposite sex cohabiting couple (MacMathuna v AG - Couple with 9 kids have different social function to a single parent with 9 kids.)

I could be wrong but its done now

Wouldn't this involve the court legislating? It's an Act of the Oireachtas. Surely the best they could hope for is a pronouncement of invalidity.

Aside from incurring the wrath of all the same sex couples out there, how on earth would this help them to achieve their objectives?

I didn't think this question had the slightest thing to do with family rights or equality.

Hogzy

FavelaChic wrote: »

Wouldn't this involve the court legislating? It's an Act of the Oireachtas. Surely the best they could hope for is a pronouncement of invalidity.

Yeah it would but i said if the legislation is deemed unconstitutional for those reasons then the Oireachtas may feel compelled to draft new legislation that allows this...

Which would help in AIDE's overall objectives. It was in my closing paragraph so didnt spend much time on it.

What do you think the issues were in the question?

FavelaChic

I thought it was solely a question on locus standi and the effects of a finding of unconstitutionality, with a small bit of separation of powers thrown in for good measure. The first few paragraphs were a red herring designed to tempt candidates into writing about family and equality. Very sneaky, but that's the FE1s. I could only answer 4 questions in the end, but I suppose that's the FE1s for many people!

32minutes

FavelaChic wrote: »

Wouldn't this involve the court legislating? It's an Act of the Oireachtas. Surely the best they could hope for is a pronouncement of invalidity.

Aside from incurring the wrath of all the same sex couples out there, how on earth would this help them to achieve their objectives?

I didn't think this question had the slightest thing to do with family rights or equality.

I agree that it seemed to turn more on the effect of a finding of invalidity or severance (which would be unlikely) and that this wouldnt be much help to the group in a purely legal group. I also didnt think there was enough in Locus standi to base most of the question on it.

If you did discuss a finding of uncnstitutionality then what basis did you say it was unconstitutional under ?
Also how did SOP come into it ? Or is that just solely on the courts legislating in a situation of a finding of invalidity...

FavelaChic

32minutes wrote: »

I agree that it seemed to turn more on the effect of a finding of invalidity or severance (which would be unlikely) and that this wouldnt be much help to the group in a purely legal group. I also didnt think there was enough in Locus standi to base most of the question on it.

If you did discuss a finding of uncnstitutionality then what basis did you say it was unconstitutional under ?
Also how did SOP come into it ? Or is that just solely on the courts legislating in a situation of a finding of invalidity...

The question didn't ask on what basis it may be found unconstitutional. It asked whether a successful outcome would help them achieve their objectives, namely 'to get better guardianship rights for dads'.

The only body that can confer rights of this kind is the Oireachtas. A protest outside Leinster House would be more effective. Constitutional challanges are an expensive business, and for a non-profit campaign group that stands to achieve nothing, they are a pointless exercise.

ally10

does anyone have any tips for tomorrows exam..its my first fe and im so nervous!!

Jev/N

FavelaChic wrote: »

The question didn't ask on what basis it may be found unconstitutional. It asked whether a successful outcome would help them achieve their objectives, namely 'to get better guardianship rights for dads'.

Yeah I mentioned this (that a finding of unconstitutionality wouldn't be of help) in connection with questioning whether there was locus standi at all due to the aims of the group and the circumstances of this case.

I did mention family in relation to whether the objective of the Act was railing against the family unit and the jealously guarded institution of marriage - again, not directly relevant to the fathers' situation but a relevant consideration in terms of a challenge on constitutional grounds.

I think equality does play some role as the Act discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation and it then arises whether this is justified and proportionate

That would be my view anyways...

fifi8_4

I'm in the same boat...unfortunately I haven't heard any tips either..would love if someone had some just to focus my last few hours of study!

ally10 wrote: »

does anyone have any tips for tomorrows exam..its my first fe and im so nervous!!

coco13

I know this is very brief but it may help somewhat..... As you can see most changes.amendments are institutional and structural in an attempt to resolve the inadequacies in the EU system that the TOA and TON failed to address specifically:

1. Organisational Changes
EC no longer exists/EU now has legal personality/Pillar System under MT now gone

2. QMV in the Coucil has now changed

3. Instituitonal Power Balance Changed

4. Charter of FR now mentioned in Treaty though not directly incorporated

5. Judicial Changes - Cts renamed/ Supremacy recognised in Dec 17

6. Addition of 2 new competences to the EU - Measures to combat Climate Change/ Common energy policy

7. Standing and Judicial Review
Amendment to Art 267 - "regulatory acts that do not entail implementing measure"

8. Self Amending Provisions

Hope its of some use!

JCJCJC

fifi8_4 wrote: »

I'm in the same boat...unfortunately I haven't heard any tips either..would love if someone had some just to focus my last few hours of study!

All I'd say is know the fact patterns of as many cases as possible, if you like problem questions. All four problems in March were absolutely specific to particular cases. They tend to be the human-to-human ones rather than the big foreign government and shipping company ones, eg Sowell v Potter, Thorner v Major, Bannerman v White. Even one of the characters in the story was called Potter.

If I were to take a totally wild guess I'd pick Dinnegan v Ryan, recovery of damages for emotional distress - it was mentioned in a lecture given by Prof, Robt. Clark to the Law Society. Couple turned up at a pub for a very small-scale wedding bash - turned away, they got a few grand each for breach, the pub feiced-up the job basically and the judge felt sorry for them on their wedding day. The judge came out with the amazing line - "this is no simple bread-and-butter contract - it concerns sausages and sandwiches". Not exactly the stuff of Lord Denning and the Vandervell estate.

Good luck.

JC

32minutes

Jev/N wrote: »

Yeah I mentioned this (that a finding of unconstitutionality wouldn't be of help) in connection with questioning whether there was locus standi at all due to the aims of the group and the circumstances of this case.

I did mention family in relation to whether the objective of the Act was railing against the family unit and the jealously guarded institution of marriage - again, not directly relevant to the fathers' situation but a relevant consideration in terms of a challenge on constitutional grounds.

I think equality does play some role as the Act discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation and it then arises whether this is justified and proportionate

That would be my view anyways...

+1

While I think that a finding of invalidity is what was being asked to consider in terms of the benefits of having the law struck down and locus standi was also being directly asked aswell; I also think that to say the association had a right to challenge the act without having due regard to the basis of their challenge might be taking the question a bit too literally.

Anyway in granting locus standi wouldn't the courts have to consider the grounds of the challenge itself ? whether it was actus popularis or under SPUC vs Coogan theyre not going to allow vexatious cases.

IMO it was worth considering equality and family because; question- can the associaation challenge the act ? the answer (at least partially) not without any grounds they cant.

dumbyearbook

rick flair wrote: »

Cany anyone email me exam grids for Equity, Contract, EU and Torts. Looking for recent ones and not the old stuff on the Google Group.


Cheers

Hi I need a copy of this too if anyone has it would be appreciated or a softcopy of the paper from April this year would be even better.
thx.

Thirdfox

JCJCJC wrote: »

All I'd say is know the fact patterns of as many cases as possible, if you like problem questions. All four problems in March were absolutely specific to particular cases. They tend to be the human-to-human ones rather than the big foreign government and shipping company ones, eg Sowell v Potter, Thorner v Major, Bannerman v White. Even one of the characters in the story was called Potter.
JC

Though it's not absolutely suicidal to argue from first principles too if you don't know the cases. Sometimes examiners choose obscure cases that you might not even find when reading through the definitive textbooks. As our lecturer put it to us - kudos if you know the case it's based on (and major points for that, as well as the benefit of you knowing the "answer") but don't panic if you don't.

After all, the job of a lawyer is to argue legal points from principles (derived from precedent) as well as factual precedent. In most cases legal precedent is the more important of the two.

Good luck to all tomorrow.

rick flair

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/55.html

link for whoever is interested followoing on from JCJCJC

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

All I'd say is know the fact patterns of as many cases as possible, if you like problem questions. All four problems in March were absolutely specific to particular cases. They tend to be the human-to-human ones rather than the big foreign government and shipping company ones, eg Sowell v Potter, Thorner v Major, Bannerman v White. Even one of the characters in the story was called Potter.

If I were to take a totally wild guess I'd pick Dinnegan v Ryan, recovery of damages for emotional distress - it was mentioned in a lecture given by Prof, Robt. Clark to the Law Society. Couple turned up at a pub for a very small-scale wedding bash - turned away, they got a few grand each for breach, the pub feiced-up the job basically and the judge felt sorry for them on their wedding day. The judge came out with the amazing line - "this is no simple bread-and-butter contract - it concerns sausages and sandwiches". Not exactly the stuff of Lord Denning and the Vandervell estate.

Good luck.

JC

There are two sides to this approach. On the one hand, if the facts of a case you know inside out appear on the exam, you're pretty happy. However, if that happens - and you know it - then your answer ought pretty much be "well, these are the precise facts of X v Y and in that case...and so I don't need to write any more". On the other hand, if one knows general principles, sometimes an answer can be better. It depends entirely on how one actually answers it, but personally, I always found it somewhat unsettling when I knew that a particular fact scenario was from a case and had been decided upon. It required an element of "leaving the brain at the door" to say "well, this has already been settled and the answer is X, but on the assumption that we pretend we don't know about that, here is how you would have got to the conclusion anyway".

My own view is setting exam questions on real-case facts tends to penalise (in a sense) the best students because the best student actually has the "one line" answer on questions where the facts are identicial to the facts of decided cases.