FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

trixabelle86

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Bit of a silly question - at what point can you say the defendant has been negligent? Once duty and breach have been established, right? I'm just doubting myself here.

Yeah the main thing is duty and breach and to show theres a causal link between the def's negligent act/omission and the plaintiff's injury.

Thats what I have in my mind anyway. You have ME doubting myself now!!!

Ok, I looked it up and it says in the manual:
"In negligence a breach of the duty and standard of care by the Defendant must be the cause of compensable harm to the Plantiff. The causal connection between the Defendant's act and the harm must be established and furthermore the damage must be of a type which is legally recognised and not too remote (remoteness)"

STUPID TORT LAW!!!!

doing

doing wrote: »

Anyone have an exam gid for Property? Or even just tell me which are the ones that usually come up?

anyone at all?

-aboutagirl-

Hi all,

Just have a query for anyone studying equity, especially people who did a prep course.

Am wondering how we approach problem questions on charitable trusts in light of the Charities Act 2009. As far as I can see from the SIs (SI 284/2009), it seems that Section 3 of this Act is not yet in force. So the reformulation of the public benefit test plus the new categories and importantly the purposes contained in s.3(11) are not yet law. Therefore if we're answering a problem question does this mean we answer according to the common law principles & make reference to the forthcoming changes contained in the CA 09? Or do you answer on the basis of the CA 09 alone?

Or am I missing something entirely here? has s.3 actually been commenced?

I notice there hasn't been much focus on Charitable Trusts in recent years and am wondering if this is for the reasons above.

akom

Hi ...

Does anyone know if personal liberty should be included/would be asked as part of due course of law and due process q's in Const??

brian__foley

akom wrote: »

Hi ...

Does anyone know if personal liberty should be included/would be asked as part of due course of law and due process q's in Const??

The short answer may be how else would you know, in certain cases, if evidence has been obtained unconstitutionally? Ditto re Article 40.5.

steph86

Hi all, hope studing is going well.
In relation to terms of the contract, i'm having difficulty understanding where Hong Kong fir shipping v Kawaski fits in. I'm going off the gcd manual. I understand the topic regarding whether something is a mere rep or a warranty (taking into a/c when the statement was made, reliance etc) I have also done misrepresentation in conjunction with this topic as from the past papers the two seem to go hand in hand.
I just dont see how Hong kong fits in. I see that relates to the distincton between a condition and a warranty, i just dont get how this "seaworthiness clause" ties in with the rest of the topic.
Help!!

doing

doing wrote: »

Anyone have an exam gid for Property? Or even just tell me which are the ones that usually come up?

anyone at all?

akom

brian__foley wrote: »

The short answer may be how else would you know, in certain cases, if evidence has been obtained unconstitutionally? Ditto re Article 40.5.

Of course! That seems so obvious to me now..thanks very much!

RebelScorned

Right guys, finally feeling alot better about Constitutional Law. The topics I have prepared are:

separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrine,
all aspects of trial in due course of law,
property rights,
president and art 26 referrals,
natural law approach,
right to privacy,
right to fair procedures,
freedom of religion,
family,
education,
equality,
constitutional interpretation.

Furthermore, i have material prepared on locus standi, retrospectivity and the presumption of constitutionality just in case.

Tell me honestly, is this enough? I know I should be brave now but I am finding it hard to accept and move on- the more i cover, the more i want to cover, but realistically i dont want to be putting myself under pressure trying to cram them all into my head next week! I need to move onto tidying my equity notes next! Thanks

colonel1

steph86 wrote: »

Hi all, hope studing is going well.
In relation to terms of the contract, i'm having difficulty understanding where Hong Kong fir shipping v Kawaski fits in. I'm going off the gcd manual. I understand the topic regarding whether something is a mere rep or a warranty (taking into a/c when the statement was made, reliance etc) I have also done misrepresentation in conjunction with this topic as from the past papers the two seem to go hand in hand.
I just dont see how Hong kong fits in. I see that relates to the distincton between a condition and a warranty, i just dont get how this "seaworthiness clause" ties in with the rest of the topic.
Help!!

Off the top of my head, Hong Kong Firs concerns inominate terms, i.e a hybrid term which is labelled as either a condition or a warranty depending on the seriousness of the breach. The case concerned a seaworthiness term. I can't recall just now whether it was a condition or a warranty. Please see my 2nd post for more details.

colonel1

Hi Steph86,



Please see below for the case digest for HongKong Firs. Hope that it helps:)


Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hongkong Fir)

Court of Appeal
20 December 1961
Case Digest

Subject: Shipping
Keywords: Charterparties; Seaworthiness; Warranties
Summary: Carriage by sea; charterparty; warranty of seaworthiness
Abstract: By a time charterparty, charterers hired a ship ". . . she being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service." The owners were to "maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery during service." The ship was delivered to the charterers in February 1957 in reasonably good condition, but chiefly owing to an inadequate engine room staff, there were serious breakdowns on the first voyage, resulting in lengthy delays and considerable expense on repairs. In June 1957, the charterers, who had no reasonable grounds for thinking that the vessel could be made seaworthy before September 1957, repudiated the contract. The ship was in fact made thoroughly seaworthy by the middle of September, and the owners sued the charterers for wrongful repudiation of the charterparty. Salmon, J. held that the owners were entitled to damages. The charterers appealed.

Held, although the owners were admittedly in breach of their obligation to deliver a seaworthy ship, seaworthiness was not a condition of the charterparty the breach of which entitled the charterers at once to repudiate; since, therefore, the delays caused by the breakdowns and repairs were not sufficient for the contract to be frustrated, the charterers' claim failed and the appeal must be dismissed. Havelock v Geddes (1809) 10 Ea. 555 applied; Davidson v Gwynne 104 E.R. 149 applied; Tarrabochia v Hickie 156 E.R. 1168 applied; J&E Kish v Charles Taylor & Sons & Co [1912] A.C. 604 applied; Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874-75) L.R. 10 C.P. 125 considered; Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati (No.1) [1957] 1 W.L.R. 979 approved and applied. Per Diplock, L.J.: The shipowner's undertaking to deliver a seaworthy ship is neither a "condition" nor a "warranty" but one of that large class of contractual undertakings one breach of which may have the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "condition" under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and a different breach of which may have only the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "warranty" under that Act.
Judge: Sellers, L.J.; Upjohn, L.J.; Diplock

Hogzy

Folks can anyone list the exceptions in Cahill v Sutton where a person can have locus Standi if they are not directly affected by the act? I am finding it tough actually pinpointing some of them.

1. If the challenger has a common interest eg SPUC
2. If you are not in a position to assert your rights then a third party can do it for you. (eg if you are dead)

What are the other exceptions?

quiba

How does Lancefort fit into the Salomon exceptions? To find the company has locus standi the court goes behind the corporate veil to look at the members environmental interests, but given that the company was incorporated specifically to protect the members financially; how does the court justify piercing the corporate veil?

frustratedTC

Heya, just wondering if any1 doing tort could clarify something for me with regards to the loss of chance doctrine for causation. When the manual says that it only applies where there is a less than 50% chance, does this mean that at the time of the injury the pl must have had a 50%+ chance of recovery and due to the df neg they now have a less than 50% chance of avoiding or miniimising injury. OR does it mean that the df must reduce the pl's chance by 50% so say at time of injury pl has 80% chance of recovery, but then due to df neg his chance is reduced to 45% he can't recover, but if df reduced it to 40% he could????????

Baffled here lol

frustratedTC

-aboutagirl- wrote: »

Hi all,

Just have a query for anyone studying equity, especially people who did a prep course.

Am wondering how we approach problem questions on charitable trusts in light of the Charities Act 2009. As far as I can see from the SIs (SI 284/2009), it seems that Section 3 of this Act is not yet in force. So the reformulation of the public benefit test plus the new categories and importantly the purposes contained in s.3(11) are not yet law. Therefore if we're answering a problem question does this mean we answer according to the common law principles & make reference to the forthcoming changes contained in the CA 09? Or do you answer on the basis of the CA 09 alone?

Or am I missing something entirely here? has s.3 actually been commenced?

I notice there hasn't been much focus on Charitable Trusts in recent years and am wondering if this is for the reasons above.

I dont think its come into effect yet

steph86

colonel1 wrote: »

Hi Steph86,



Please see below for the case digest for HongKong Firs. Hope that it helps:)


Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hongkong Fir)

Court of Appeal
20 December 1961
Case Digest

Subject: Shipping
Keywords: Charterparties; Seaworthiness; Warranties
Summary: Carriage by sea; charterparty; warranty of seaworthiness
Abstract: By a time charterparty, charterers hired a ship ". . . she being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service." The owners were to "maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery during service." The ship was delivered to the charterers in February 1957 in reasonably good condition, but chiefly owing to an inadequate engine room staff, there were serious breakdowns on the first voyage, resulting in lengthy delays and considerable expense on repairs. In June 1957, the charterers, who had no reasonable grounds for thinking that the vessel could be made seaworthy before September 1957, repudiated the contract. The ship was in fact made thoroughly seaworthy by the middle of September, and the owners sued the charterers for wrongful repudiation of the charterparty. Salmon, J. held that the owners were entitled to damages. The charterers appealed.

Held, although the owners were admittedly in breach of their obligation to deliver a seaworthy ship, seaworthiness was not a condition of the charterparty the breach of which entitled the charterers at once to repudiate; since, therefore, the delays caused by the breakdowns and repairs were not sufficient for the contract to be frustrated, the charterers' claim failed and the appeal must be dismissed. Havelock v Geddes (1809) 10 Ea. 555 applied; Davidson v Gwynne 104 E.R. 149 applied; Tarrabochia v Hickie 156 E.R. 1168 applied; J&E Kish v Charles Taylor & Sons & Co [1912] A.C. 604 applied; Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874-75) L.R. 10 C.P. 125 considered; Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati (No.1) [1957] 1 W.L.R. 979 approved and applied. Per Diplock, L.J.: The shipowner's undertaking to deliver a seaworthy ship is neither a "condition" nor a "warranty" but one of that large class of contractual undertakings one breach of which may have the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "condition" under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and a different breach of which may have only the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "warranty" under that Act.
Judge: Sellers, L.J.; Upjohn, L.J.; Diplock

thanks a million:) that makes much more sense now. i'll re look at it tomorrow but see how it applies now.
much appreciated. x

colonel1

steph86 wrote: »

thanks a million:) that makes much more sense now. i'll re look at it tomorrow but see how it applies now.
much appreciated. x

You are very welcome steph86:) Westlaw UK is great for short case summaries/digests!

RebelScorned

Would i be really crazy to leave out injunctions altogether if i was def learning 3 certainties, specific performance, rectification, estoppel, charitable trusts, secret trusts, resulting trusts and constructive trusts?

colonel1

RebelScorned wrote: »

Would i be really crazy to leave out injunctions altogether if i was def learning 3 certainties, specific performance, rectification, estoppel, charitable trusts, secret trusts, resulting trusts and constructive trusts?

It could be a bit risky to leave out injunctions imo, even though they only came up as a note the last time. Are you leaving out trustees as well?

frustratedTC

Hey everyone,
Just wondering am i taking a silly risk by just covering anton pillar order and mareva for injunctions?

-aboutagirl-

I'm hoping it'll be Marevas, they haven't come up in a while. Anton Pillers haven't come up in a while either, but they don't seem to be examined as frequently. That said there's no real way of knowing what will come up so you're best to try cover as much as you can.

I think you'd be mad to leave out injunctions though, there's only been one paper in recent years when they haven't been examined. Plus the fact that mandatory injunctions only came up as part of the note question last year makes you think they might feature more prominently this year.

Dylan123

Can anyone tell me why there is no mention of novus actus interveniens in this question. Is it because we are asked to advise the person who intervened. (Jack who moved a person from a car crash and drove the scenic rote to the hospital)

Is it because there is:
(1) Duty of care
(2) Breach of duty of care
(3) Injury
(4) Causation

Also would it be right in saying that the people who pass the exam may have varied elements of the law in there answers. (perhaps a few correct ways of looking at things)

RebelScorned

colonel1 wrote: »

It could be a bit risky to leave out injunctions imo, even though they only came up as a note the last time. Are you leaving out trustees as well?

I have bulletpointed appt/removal/retirement trustees and duties not to profit, invest and properly exercise discretion. It wouldnt be my first choice on the paper but i feel like i have to cover my bases with it anyway!

On same vein, is it a gamble leaving out both undue influence and injunctions together? They have come up so many times over last few sittings, might be a risky gamble?

frustratedTC

Yeah i def think they need covering, i just dont think ill have time so will prob just have to gamble of Mareva and apo, al'm hoping mandatory wouldn't appear twice!

The rest im covering is:
3 certainties
secret trusts
rectification, dmc and strong v. bird, maxims
charitable trusts and cy pres
purpose trusts
estoppel, sp, and ui
Trusteeship
Mareva and APO

Im literally tho just looking at all of those in terms of how they have appeared before cos the paper seems repetitive, hopefully plz god

RebelScorned

frustratedTC wrote: »

Im literally tho just looking at all of those in terms of how they have appeared before cos the paper seems repetitive, hopefully plz god

Actually that's a really good point, the papers are quite repetitive, good thinking!

akom

Hi guys...do you think it would be a bad idea to leave out right to a jury for a trial in due course and due process q's?? much likelihood of it coming up in your humble opinon??

akom

akom wrote: »

Hi guys...do you think it would be a bad idea to leave out right to a jury for a trial in due course and due process q's?? much likelihood of it coming up in your humble opinon??

Actually its ok im just gonna do it!!

Miss_F

Dylan123 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why there is no mention of novus actus interveniens in this question. Is it because we are asked to advise the person who intervened. (Jack who moved a person from a car crash and drove the scenic rote to the hospital)

Is it because there is:
(1) Duty of care
(2) Breach of duty of care
(3) Injury
(4) Causation

Also would it be right in saying that the people who pass the exam may have varied elements of the law in there answers. (perhaps a few correct ways of looking at things)

I "think" the reason that Novus Actus does not apply is because the act of Jack doing this would be considered a reflex action rather than a voluntary action.In which case the courts will apply an objective test based upon the expected response of a reasonable person faced with similar circumstances. Thats what iam getting from the manual anyway.

doing

doing wrote: »

Anyone have an exam gid for Property? Or even just tell me which are the ones that usually come up?

Anyone?

Dylan123

Is the defence of honest opinion a full defence alongside truth?
ps can u walk or drive easily from the ibis to the red cow ???