FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

law_lady

Can't find my copy of the Constitution anywhere and it seems to be out of print all over the place because of Lisbon. Anyone know where I could buy one in Dublin? Or would I be totally wrong to just go for it without a copy? I'm hopeful of knowing the article numbers off (hopefully). Thanks!

JCJCJC

law_lady wrote: »

Can't find my copy of the Constitution anywhere and it seems to be out of print all over the place because of Lisbon. Anyone know where I could buy one in Dublin? Or would I be totally wrong to just go for it without a copy? I'm hopeful of knowing the article numbers off (hopefully). Thanks!

Jeez don't go for it without a copy. I used a four or five -year old one at the GCD revision course last week and it was fine, all articles where they should be. It's not like the EU treaty with article numbers doing musical chairs every few years. Use coloured tabs judiciously (bad choice of word) - red for sep of powers, green for rights, pink for removal of judges etc, whatever works for you. Make a discipline of looking things up in the index every time so you'll get familiar with finding things easily when you can't recall the article.

JCJCJC

frustratedTC wrote: »

Does anybody if in relation to Prodcut liability whether under the CL duty to warn or under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 a manufacturer is required to print instructions in a few languages?

There is nothing express in th Act or directive about it, so it falls to interpreting and applying S5 (emphasis added):


.

5.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a product is defective if it fails to provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including—

(a) the presentation of the product,

(b) the use to which it could reasonably be expected that the product would be put, and

(c) the time when the product was put into circulation.

(2) A product shall not be considered defective for the sole reason that a better product is subsequently put into circulation.

So if you market a product in the Gaeltacht and the instructions and warnings are in Croatian only, that couldn't be deemed to be a reasonable discharge of your statutory duty. What the act is saying is that circumstances alter cases. Presentation could reasonably be taken to include labelling and hazard marking if appropriate. For example in English the word 'gift' means a present as in birthday present. In German, 'gift' means poison. So if you marketed a poisonous substance in Germany and Ireland in a bottle that looked like a champagne bottle and was marked 'Gift' in sparkly gold letters, and some Paddy drank it and got sick, but recovered enough to sue you of course, you couldn't reasonably claim to have properly presented your product to the Irish market taking all circumstances into account.

I don't know about the CL pos'n.

CFOLEY85

Hi all

just wondering whether ye think its necessary to learn the approach of the German/Italian / Uk courts , etc, under the doc of suprem?

frustratedTC

Thanks a mil JC that's really helped me with a prob q.

Sorry to annoy y'all again but could anyone explain s10 of the Trustee Act 1893 in layman terms, its about the power to appoint a trustee

steph86

CFOLEY85 wrote: »

Hi all

just wondering whether ye think its necessary to learn the approach of the German/Italian / Uk courts , etc, under the doc of suprem?

i looked at the german and irish approach to the doctrine of supremacy. Know the different approaches different countries take. I would think it worth while to know a few points and cases. No need to go into huge detail tho.

dinobeano

CONSTITUTIONAL EXAM

Anyone with any concerns over this horrible exam?

What are you concentrating on/ topics you're leaving out?

CFOLEY85

steph86 wrote: »

i looked at the german and irish approach to the doctrine of supremacy. Know the different approaches different countries take. I would think it worth while to know a few points and cases. No need to go into huge detail tho.

Thanks. Yeah you're probably right esp if it came up as an essay q. Im just in the mood now to start narrowing down my material, not good!

Hogzy

I'm getting so pissed off with Property law. I am struggling to understand covenants and easements. These chapters are just so bloody tedious to go through.

Is anyone finding it tough

CFOLEY85

Hogzy wrote: »

I'm getting so ****ing pissed off with Property law. I am struggling to understand covenants and easements. These chapters are just so bloody tedious to go through.

Is anyone finding it tough

DEFINITELY!! I thought it would be an ok subject, how wrong was I!! Im struggling with easements and mortgages. Really considering leaving the latter out, too much of risk?

Hogzy

CFOLEY85 wrote: »

DEFINITELY!! I thought it would be an ok subject, how wrong was I!! Im struggling with easements and mortgages. Really considering leaving the latter out, too much of risk?

I just dont know how i will remember this stuff in an exam environment. There is just too much to learn. I am finding some parts of easements and covenants hard to relate to reality. It usually helps me when i can come up with my own examples of how some principles will apply in real life but i just can do it with some areas of property. Which is a sure sign i dont understand it.

How is this not considered to be one of the toughest subjects? I found EU much easier than this to go through.


EDIT: Screw it iv had enough for one day. I am now going to have an ice cold beer and try my best to forget that i am doing these exams even just for an hour or so.

JessieJ

Hogzy wrote: »

I just dont know how i will remember this stuff in an exam environment. There is just too much to learn. I am finding some parts of easements and covenants hard to relate to reality. It usually helps me when i can come up with my own examples of how some principles will apply in real life but i just can do it with some areas of property. Which is a sure sign i dont understand it.

How is this not considered to be one of the toughest subjects? I found EU much easier than this to go through.

I would think that you could leave out mortgages, but only if you have the other big topics: adverse possession, easements etc covered.

I'm the total opposite to you Hogzy - hate EU and loved property. Freak, I know!


Does anybody have any tips for Company law? It's doing my head in, to say the least!

bob_lob_law

Hi guys, this is probably a bit of a stupid question - does proprietary estoppel fall under the maxim 'Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy'. The manual is a bit thin on the maxims, and I was hoping I could squeeze estoppel in somewhere due to being able to waffle on a bit about it, I could obviously be completely wrong too, so hence the post.

_JOE_

law_lady wrote: »

Can't find my copy of the Constitution anywhere and it seems to be out of print all over the place because of Lisbon. Anyone know where I could buy one in Dublin? Or would I be totally wrong to just go for it without a copy? I'm hopeful of knowing the article numbers off (hopefully). Thanks!

I was in Hodges Figgis this evening and they definitely do have copies in the law section...

frustratedTC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Hi guys, this is probably a bit of a stupid question - does proprietary estoppel fall under the maxim 'Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy'. The manual is a bit thin on the maxims, and I was hoping I could squeeze estoppel in somewhere due to being able to waffle on a bit about it, I could obviously be completely wrong too, so hence the post.

Yeah that sounds right to me!

JCJCJC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Hi guys, this is probably a bit of a stupid question - does proprietary estoppel fall under the maxim 'Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy'. The manual is a bit thin on the maxims, and I was hoping I could squeeze estoppel in somewhere due to being able to waffle on a bit about it, I could obviously be completely wrong too, so hence the post.

I would have thought estoppel was a better fit as an exception to the rule that 'Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift'. The easier idea for wrong-remedy is the whole scheme of interlocutory injunctions. If you have a civil case, say employment law, in a certain city on the Shannon, you won't get in front of a judge for four or five years at the moment due to the size of the criminal list. An injunction in those circumstances gets you justice, pending the plenary hearing.

JCJCJC

dinobeano wrote: »

CONSTITUTIONAL EXAM

Anyone with any concerns over this horrible exam?

What are you concentrating on/ topics you're leaving out?

Concentrating on what Dr Carolan covered in UCD last week. he said that 2010 was a 'bumper year' for constitutional law, there were so many new cases - he covered twenty of them. Lots of developments on separation of powers, removal of a judge, justiciability of matters in Leinster House, Callely's case etc. No FE1 tips included, unfortunately.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

I'm getting so pissed off with Property law. I am struggling to understand covenants and easements. These chapters are just so bloody tedious to go through.

Is anyone finding it tough

Hogzy - this might surprise you, but easements and p's-a-p is my favourite area of law! It's the sort of stuff John B Keane RIP wrote plays like 'The Field' about - the things that make quiet men in the countryside take down their grand-daddy's shotgun from above the hearth and blow the heads off their neighbours to settle things once and for all - an módh díreach it's called.
People always fight about rights-of-way, water rights, turbary, all that sort of thing. I know time is precious, but if you could get your hands on Peter Bland's book on the subject, it's an easy read and it makes a lot of sense. Any practising solr could borrow it from the Law Society for you and it will be DX'd down overnight, because it's not that easy to find in shops.
Get a few things straight - difference between Es and P-a-P's - the latter are rights over somebody else's land capable of existing in gross, eg fishing rights, sporting rights, pasturage, also capable of being a hereditament - you could leave me your salmon angling rights in the Lee in your will (I live in hope - spes successionis). P-a-p's have seperate rateable valuations and rates were payable on things like fisheries, before the rates system got nuked in the late '70's and early 80's.
Easements require a dominant and servient tenement - rights-of-way, rights of support (Todd v Cinelli).
Know how they are created and how they are extinguished, it's all common sense. In rural Ireland, so-called three-man farm passages are common, with a succession of farms one after another in along a boreen. The inner guy has rights of way over the outer two. That's an easement in operation, he is entitled to cross their farms to get to his own, but only on the pasageway. If he buys out the two outer farms, he can't have rights over himself so the easement is extinguished.
Know the ways an easement is created and ended, and check the new land act. There really isn't a lot to it and it all makes good practical sense if you connect it to reality.

A p-a-p can be created by deed since it represents the grant of an interest in land - eg you could grant game shooting rights over your farmland to a gun club (very common) or by operation of law - the State retains mineral and mining rights almost everywhere, look at any folio and you'll see it as a default burden.

JC

bob_lob_law

JCJCJC wrote: »

I would have thought estoppel was a better fit as an exception to the rule that 'Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift'. The easier idea for wrong-remedy is the whole scheme of interlocutory injunctions. If you have a civil case, say employment law, in a certain city on the Shannon, you won't get in front of a judge for four or five years at the moment due to the size of the criminal list. An injunction in those circumstances gets you justice, pending the plenary hearing.

Thanks guys, I thought estoppel might fit on the basis that 'By adopting the maxim "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy", the courts of equity have considered themselves entitled to intervene in order to protect a right even where that right is not enforceable at common law.'

So, in estoppel, equity intervenes and stops someone from enforcing their strict legal rights, on the basis of a representation/promise made, that was relied on by the other party to their detriment. And it is not enforceable at common law, so I'm thinking it falls within the maxim?

jenny1984

Hey guys, anyone know what ross alyward (GCD) or Independent predicted for the Equity Exam? (Stressed)

JCJCJC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Thanks guys, I thought estoppel might fit on the basis that 'By adopting the maxim "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy", the courts of equity have considered themselves entitled to intervene in order to protect a right even where that right is not enforceable at common law.'

So, in estoppel, equity intervenes and stops someone from enforcing their strict legal rights, on the basis of a representation/promise made, that was relied on by the other party to their detriment. And it is not enforceable at common law, so I'm thinking it falls within the maxim?

...quick root through Delaney's textbook...

Under wrongs/remedies in the maxim section pp 13-15, no mention of prop. estoppel. She does mention a purchase money resulting trust as an example, and the whole notion of enforceability of trusts hangs on the maxim, because equity recognises the separation of legal and equitable estates.

Under prop estoppel p637, no mention of your wrongs/rems maxim but she says 'the basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is to prevent a person insisting on his strict legal rights where to do so would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the two parties. It developed as an exception to the formalities required for the creation of interests in land and the rationale behind the doctrine could be said to be the prevention of unconscionable behaviour'

I still think that estoppel is a bad fit as an example of that particular maxim, but I can see how you could argue for it being a closely-related principle.

Hogzy

Thanks JC. Strangely once i finished the chapter this morning and had a look over my notes it all came together and made sense.
I was exhausted last night and probably continued studying when i should have stopped an hour or two before hand.


Would anyone have a good explanation or article for the right to Light as being an easement. Its seems to come up quite a bit in the exams but the manual is relatively limited. Do you have to wait 20yrs before your right to light actually becomes an easement?

frustratedTC

jenny1984 wrote: »

Hey guys, anyone know what ross alyward (GCD) or Independent predicted for the Equity Exam? (Stressed)

Does he usually get it right? supposedly estoppel wont be on it

brian__foley

Just a note in case this is relevant.

The Law Library tends to sell off old books etc every now and then. A sale is going on right now in the Distillery Building. From passing, there appeared to be about 5 copies of the constitution (Dark Blue, not Light Blue). I don't know how in-date they are, but I don't think that really matters.

Anyway, I recall some mentions of not being able to get them, and there are a few there.

T.Watson

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

I think institutions didn't come up on the paper last time out which would have been a bit of a suprise, so that would be an area worth covering. Competition is quite long but there's also usually a question on that.

The examiner does seem to have some 'thing' about the Brussels Regulation and Transparency so it might be worth getting a hold of his report and having a read to see if there are any pointers in it.

Thanks for the helpful reply, just got hold of the exam reports so hopefully they'll be enlightening!

Heard about this yesterday, not sure how relevant it is but thought it might of interest to those doing EU. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0309/1224291667585.html

chopser

frustratedTC wrote: »

Does he usually get it right? supposedly estoppel wont be on it

Why do you think estoppel will not be on it?

frustratedTC

Apparantly it's just not tipped for this yea, but sure it could well appear!What are u studying? i'm fairly screwed for the subject, just can't really get it to come together for me

StressHead!

dinobeano wrote: »

CONSTITUTIONAL EXAM

Anyone with any concerns over this horrible exam?

What are you concentrating on/ topics you're leaving out?

Hey Dino! I was just reading through my notes today and I was fairly happy with what I had gone over until I looked at the exam papers... they are horrendous! I fear sitting in the exam not having a clue what topics are in front of me!
Separation of Powers, Due Process and the Fundamental rights often seem to make a showing so they would be good ones to concentrate on!

RebelScorned

JCJCJC wrote: »

Concentrating on what Dr Carolan covered in UCD last week. he said that 2010 was a 'bumper year' for constitutional law, there were so many new cases - he covered twenty of them. Lots of developments on separation of powers, removal of a judge, justiciability of matters in Leinster House, Callely's case etc. No FE1 tips included, unfortunately.

Lads, i share this Constitutional pain with ye. I am absolutely demented. I'm not even 50% through it yet, absolutely huge course and it's scary as hell the way pretty much anything can be examined. Bearing in mind the examiner is always telling us to keep topical issues to mind, i reckon property rights in light of McKillen Nama case, fair procedures in light of Ivor Callely expenses scandal, Article 26, the family in light of new Civil Partnership Act are all worth keeping in mind. That is just my opinion though. I really regret not doing a course for constitutional now, there is just an insurmountable mountain of material to get through. I am reluctant to leave anything out- for example i will try to cover every facet of separation of powers because this is examined pretty much every year, as are rights in some form or another. Can anybody recommend a concise textbook or materials that might help- my logic is is it better to know a little about a lot instead of a lot about a little. Time is running away from us too quickly altogether :-(

cd.galway

Just wondering in the area of Fundamental Rights in the EU does EU/MS act still have fall within scope of EU law for it to conform with fundamental rights or did the the Charter adopted in 2009 change this? I'm a bit hazy on the area.