FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Hogzy

Dr Carolan,
If you are reading this (i highly doubt you are) then please for the love of god PLEASE leave out a case note question on tomorrows paper. I know its probably too late but heres hoping!!!

doing

Just noticed:




it says in the rule book absolutely no food or drink. Can you really not bring a bottle of water into a 3 hour exam?




And could anyone explain to me what the (Constitution: delegation of powers) ECJ's judgement on 2006 McCauley v Pharmaceutical society of Ireland was? The language they use is so ambiguous that to me it could mean they found either way, and why isn't the 2006 case on the Supreme Courts website?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/frmSCJudgmentsByYear?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=35&Expand=6&Seq=1

I could probably understand for myself grand if I could see what their reaction to that preliminary hearing from the ECJ was.

mirm

Hope the exams are going well. Could some please pm an up to date exam grid for contract and crime!! I would greatly appreciate it!!

Hogzy

doing wrote: »

Just noticed:




it says in the rule book absolutely no food or drink. Can you really not bring a bottle of water into a 3 hour exam?

I brought a bottle of water in with me today and nothing was said. I also saw people eating bananas. I dont know why they put that rule in. Fair enough about the food creating a mess and what not (the guy just left his banana peal on the ground:rolleyes:) but not allowing students bring a bottle of water is mental. Not once have i heard of someone being told they cannot bring a drink into the hall.
Its a stupid rule that nearly EVERYONE ignores

doing

Hogzy wrote: »

I brought a bottle of water in with me today and nothing was said. I also saw people eating bananas. I dont know why they put that rule in. Fair enough about the food creating a mess and what not (the guy just left his banana peal on the ground:rolleyes:) but not allowing students bring a bottle of water is mental. Not once have i heard of someone being told they cannot bring a drink into the hall.
Its a stupid rule that nearly EVERYONE ignores

Thank god for that! Thanks for answering.

Just one more question for you all tonight:


Could anyone explain to me what the (Constitution: delegation of legislative powers) ECJ's judgement on 2006 McCauley v Pharmaceutical society of Ireland case was? The language they use is so ambiguous that to me it could mean they found either way, and why isn't the case on the Supreme Courts website?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/frmSCJudgmentsByYear?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=35&Expand=6&Seq=1

I could probably understand for myself grand if I could see what the Supreme Courts reaction to that preliminary hearing from the ECJ was.

doing

doing wrote: »

Thank god for that! Thanks for answering.

Just one more question for you all tonight:


Could anyone explain to me what the (Constitution: delegation of legislative powers) ECJ's judgement on 2006 McCauley v Pharmaceutical society of Ireland case was? The language they use is so ambiguous that to me it could mean they found either way, and why isn't the case on the Supreme Courts website?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/frmSCJudgmentsByYear?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=35&Expand=6&Seq=1

I could probably understand for myself grand if I could see what the Supreme Courts reaction to that preliminary hearing from the ECJ was.

Any chance at all someone knows anything about this?

doing

I'll give it one more go before everyone's gone to bed.

steph86

doing wrote: »

I'll give it one more go before everyone's gone to bed.

hey
im not doing constitution so dont know what its in relation to but anyways i googled the case name. the first hit you get is the case from the europe cases. only looks a page or 2 long. worth a read. might help ya out.
sorry cant be much help

Kamilat

Hi guys,

Hope the exams/study are going well for all that started!
Just wondering if anyone knows of any recent developments in contract law? and whats everyone covering for it?

steph86

Kamilat wrote: »

Hi guys,

Hope the exams/study are going well for all that started!
Just wondering if anyone knows of any recent developments in contract law? and whats everyone covering for it?

for contract i'm doing offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create, formalities, capacity, privity, terms of a contract, illegality and void contracts, mistake and discharge. hopefully that will be enough.

I think contract is def gonna be my worst, always seem to miss out something in a prob q. Im just goin by the gcd manual.

moppet

Kamilat wrote: »

i think it's a question on undue influence and third parties, specifically the etridge case where the test was set out for the banks to follow to ensure their securities are enforceable! What a disaster of a paper! And no question on complete constitution! What the hell...!

i am so glad to hear someone else thought it was tough aswell, i nearly died, even the mareva was dodgy - can any one tell me if the trust for the polo club was valid?

moppet

can any one help? need to pass this one and have until the exam to study, does any one have the independant colleges tips?

Kamilat

steph86 wrote: »

for contract i'm doing offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create, formalities, capacity, privity, terms of a contract, illegality and void contracts, mistake and discharge. hopefully that will be enough.

I think contract is def gonna be my worst, always seem to miss out something in a prob q. Im just goin by the gcd manual.

Tell me about it, i'm usually not too bad with spotting issues in questons but contract....is in a league of its own, I havent a clue, its so confusing. Are you leaving out remedies and estoppel? oh where to start!

Kamilat

moppet wrote: »

i am so glad to hear someone else thought it was tough aswell, i nearly died, even the mareva was dodgy - can any one tell me if the trust for the polo club was valid?[/QUOTE
Yea i'd also like to know, as I just left that part out altogether in the end...

Dylan123

Cant quite work out ... why say no derogations available for Art 30 TFEU.. then say well under Art 110 and services rendered and mandatory obligations there are....
think im possibly being my own worst enemy studying this subject... Eu is a little bit of a head wrecker...


Is it not clearer to say yes there are three derrogations available and here they are...sometimes i think the law is obsessed with riddles... why not just say black is black white is white... opposed to saying red is orange... (perhaps im over simplifying it) apologies rant over for the minute

hession.law

Dylan123 wrote: »

Cant quite work out ... why say no derogations available for Art 30 TFEU.. then say well under Art 110 and services rendered and mandatory obligations there are....
think im possibly being my own worst enemy studying this subject... Eu is a little bit of a head wrecker...


Is it not clearer to say yes there are three derrogations available and here they are...sometimes i think the law is obsessed with riddles... why not just say black is black white is white... opposed to saying red is orange... (perhaps im over simplifying it) apologies rant over for the minute

There is no justification for DIRECT discrimination under Art 30 and this absolute Csn v Italy however a charge may follow outside the scope of Art 30 where it is for a service rendered, charged under a mandatory EU obligation or it forms part of the internal tax system, thats where Art 110 comes in.

eg importers of Polish vodka are charged a fee of €100 because because it comes from Poland, prohibited by Art 30

importers of Polish vodka are charged a fee of €100 because the vodka is stored in a licence warehouse pending clearance, then this may fall outside Art 30 provided the service was actual rendered, and the cost is proportionate and not based on the value of the goods, origin etc.

Dylan123

hession.law wrote: »

There is no justification for DIRECT discrimination under Art 30 and this absolute Csn v Italy however a charge may follow outside the scope of Art 30 where it is for a service rendered, charged under a mandatory EU obligation or it forms part of the internal tax system, thats where Art 110 comes in.

eg importers of Polish vodka are charged a fee of €100 because because it comes from Poland, prohibited by Art 30

importers of Polish vodka are charged a fee of €100 because the vodka is stored in a licence warehouse pending clearance, then this may fall outside Art 30 provided the service was actual rendered, and the cost is proportionate and not based on the value of the goods, origin etc.

Thanks. So when we apply the law in the problem question next week for FMOG is it not fair to say that its hard to distinguish whether an offence will fall under Art 30 or 34 however u argue ..because they are so similar and therefore direct discrim is allowed on matters of public health policy etc...

After all didnt the dassonvile case state that anything capable of hindering trade can be an MEQR

hession.law

The recent ECJ case of Zambrano, does this mean that wholly internal situations are no longer a bar to deriving rights Art 20, 21 TFEU

hession.law

Dylan123 wrote: »

Thanks. So when we apply the law in the problem question next week for FMOG is it not fair to say that its hard to distinguish whether an offence will fall under Art 30 or 34 however u argue ..because they are so similar and therefore direct discrim is allowed on matters of public health policy etc...

I am not sure what you mean, Art 30 Direct is absolutely prohibited full stop, the questions will be tailored to an indirect discrimination to get you to assess if it falls within/outside Art 30

Art 34 is very different this allows direct so long as it falls within the EXHAUSTED list under Art 36, for exaples of Direct look at Art 2 Directive 2004/38 but again you must assess whether it is proportionate, Cassis De Dijon

Dylan123

hession.law wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean, Art 30 Direct is absolutely prohibited full stop, the questions will be tailored to an indirect discrimination to get you to assess if it falls within/outside Art 30

Art 34 is very different this allows direct so long as it falls within the EXHAUSTED list under Art 36, for exaples of Direct look at Art 2 Directive 2004/38 but again you must assess whether it is proportionate, Cassis De Dijon

Apologies for some reason i couldnt see the difference between art 30 and art 34. You cleared that up! Its important because there is a separate procedure for both!

Where there is a lack of transparency is if i import 500 cows from UK and the vet wants to check them for mad cow... you are saying i cant rely on art 36 public health...but a reliance on service rendered which is a tech loophole... is it the same as saying write an essay on the difference between grey and light grey.. the law is ok here its the application thats the issue.. ..time to move on

coco13

Hey guys..Beyond exhaustion at this stage..Find it so hard to finish one exam and start studying for another...Any opinions on what would get you a bare minimum five questions in EU.. Just so so much to cover.. Where to begin!???

trixabelle86

coco13 wrote: »

Hey guys..Beyond exhaustion at this stage..Find it so hard to finish one exam and start studying for another...Any opinions on what would get you a bare minimum five questions in EU.. Just so so much to cover.. Where to begin!???

I know exactly how you feel. I have procrastinated all day today. I even made muffins...like WTF??? I will study though... in a minute...

Thirdfox

What did people think of Constitutional?

Q5 had that tricky issue that he was charged with a crime (2011) that only existed after he committed the act in 2010. Though we weren't asked to advise him on the issue I did devote quite a bit of time on it...since I'd imagine he'd be pretty happy to know that he'd be acquitted

Did anyone do Q3?

I was stuck for the fifth question and started by quoting Lord Diplock (sic Denning) - "we have before us a person who is no lover of the unenumerated rights doctrine" before going on about how he would have loved to play with "in particular"

And, since the bold part only asked to discuss the issue - no reference to caselaw, I guess I could get away with only using 5 cases :P

coco13

trixabelle86 wrote: »

I know exactly how you feel. I have procrastinated all day today. I even made muffins...like WTF??? I will study though... in a minute...

Too funny.. I'm at the same sh**! Anything but get down to it!!!! Enjoy the muffins!:P

steph86

Kamilat wrote: »

Tell me about it, i'm usually not too bad with spotting issues in questons but contract....is in a league of its own, I havent a clue, its so confusing. Are you leaving out remedies and estoppel? oh where to start!

im doing estoppel, it goes along with consideration in the gcd manual.
im just reading over remedies just.
I think a for the contract exam there are always a few issues in each prob q so if we can get the main ones we will be fine. ive spent the last two days going over contract so i wont be looking at it now again til thurs. have eu and property to do as well. disaster.
does anyone know if the contract examiner is an easy marker?

Hogzy

Wasnt too impressed with constitutional today. I thought some of the issues in the problem Q were hard to spot at times. I am worried. I have failed constitutional twice before and i fear this could be a third failed paper. Equity didnt go so great for me either. Please god let property go well.

On the plus side. Thank god there was no casenote question.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

Wasnt too impressed with constitutional today. I thought some of the issues in the problem Q were hard to spot at times. I am worried. I have failed constitutional twice before and i fear this could be a third failed paper. Equity didnt go so great for me either. Please god let property go well.

On the plus side. Thank god there was no casenote question.

I hadn't even noticed the absence of a casenote question until you mentioned it! I got advice from a solicitor friend last week - she said write a load of waffle but mention lots of cases in it, so that is what I did... Memory was beginning to flag by Q5, couldn't think of the names of cases I actually know. It wasn't a bad exam overall I thought, but not very conventional, you had to find ways to fit your info around the questions he asked.
What did people think of the Kerry Co Co waste management one? I thought it was about fair procedures, natural and constitutional justice, nemo judex and all that...but I'm open to correction.

When I came out of the Constitutional Exam today, my notes weren't where I had left them...if anybody can help me find them, I would appreciate a PM, they were in a had-cover book just like this one:

Sheedy

The problem questions were very tough alright. Anyone know what the issues were in the one about Martin and the negative equity orders?

Shocked about the essay on association/dissociation too, I really didn't have enough to write a whole esssay on it, but was fairly pleased with the family parent/child question.

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

I hadn't even noticed the absence of a casenote question until you mentioned it! I got advice from a solicitor friend last week - she said write a load of waffle but mention lots of cases in it, so that is what I did... Memory was beginning to flag by Q5, couldn't think of the names of cases I actually know. It wasn't a bad exam overall I thought, but not very conventional, you had to find ways to fit your info around the questions he asked.
What did people think of the Kerry Co Co waste management one? I thought it was about fair procedures, natural and constitutional justice, nemo judex and all that...but I'm open to correction.

When I came out of the Constitutional Exam today, my notes weren't where I had left them...if anybody can help me find them, I would appreciate a PM, they were in a had-cover book just like this one:

They werent there when i got out. I looked over to see if you had left but not seeing the book i thought you went.

I was kicking myself for not having prepared a Right to associate and dissociate. I think I went over 2 cases before the exam just in case i needed to mention it. The Art 41 and 42 essay question was nice.

Did anyone do the unenumerated rights question. I never thought of approaching it from that angle before. I hope it was correct. Talked a bit about how courts interpret the rights. How it changed from Natural law to Justice prudence and charity. Then i started to waffle a bit.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

They werent there when i got out. I looked over to see if you had left but not seeing the book i thought you went.

I was kicking myself for not having prepared a Right to associate and dissociate. I think I went over 2 cases before the exam just in case i needed to mention it. The Art 41 and 42 essay question was nice.

Did anyone do the unenumerated rights question. I never thought of approaching it from that angle before. I hope it was correct. Talked a bit about how courts interpret the rights. How it changed from Natural law to Justice prudence and charity. Then i started to waffle a bit.

Thanks Hogzy. I didn't tackle either of those two, didn't think there was enough caselaw on the right to associate, or in any event I don't know enough.

I was surprised there was no right to privacy question.