FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Thirdfox

JCJCJC wrote: »

As for contract - this is bugging the hell out of me - what does everyone think about the internet contract formation scenario?

i.e. Aer Lingus take your credit card details, (you've taken advantage of their awesome €1 flight to NY deal - honestly believed of course and given you an automated message... is that valid acceptance? (Communication?)

If you purported to buy the aeroplane itself from Aer Lingus for €1 no court would accept that you thought you had a deal, and the contract would be rescinded for mistake. However, if you bought a flight to America for €1, it is open to you to argue that such a thing is not actually far-fetched, flights do sell at a level that seems irrational, and you bona-fide entered a contract on that basis thinking you had bought a loss-leader marketing guy's product etc. That's the point of the question - can Aer Lingus put up a reasonable argument that they made a mistake that you must have known of, and it would be an unconscionable bargain to let you fly for €1. The general sense of it is contained in the Ryanair prize case, let me know if you need a url or better citation.

What if they take 1 euro from your credit card account? What if their terms and conditions state that they can refund you any money they took in case of mistake?

If you enter a contract subject to an express term, aren't you bound by it? You are into an actual/constructive notice argument at this stage, remember the old railway tickets cases, same principle.

I can forsee this being another question similar to ones that's been asked before - and my book just doesn't seem to answer it definitively :

Reduce it to basic principles, offer, acceptance, contract formation, unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, breach of terms, breach of warranty, breach of condition etc - if you analyse it correctly and not let yourself be distracted by the modern setting of the fact pattern, it should work out.

Well I mention the express term as the Littlewoods/Amazon etc websites have a policy stating that a contract is not complete until the goods are dispatched from their warehouses - I was just wondering would there be any scope for arguing that this was be an unconscionable term looking at the disparity in power between consumers and companies?

Otherwise a company could make unjust enrichment from taking my money for a period (earn some interest) and then return the money to me after making a mistake/goods ran out/or whatever excuse their terms and conditions allow for. At the same time allowing me to suffer a detriment (I can't book with other airlines/sellers as I'm expecting this one to go through).

Maybe a proprietary estoppel argument... it's simply inequitable

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

Well I mention the express term as the Littlewoods/Amazon etc websites have a policy stating that a contract is not complete until the goods are dispatched from their warehouses - I was just wondering would there be any scope for arguing that this was be an unconscionable term looking at the disparity in power between consumers and companies?

Otherwise a company could make unjust enrichment from taking my money for a period (earn some interest) and then return the money to me after making a mistake/goods ran out/or whatever excuse their terms and conditions allow for. At the same time allowing me to suffer a detriment (I can't book with other airlines/sellers as I'm expecting this one to go through).

Maybe a proprietary estoppel argument... it's simply inequitable

Caveat emptor...you gotta read the fine print. Your own argument fails on its face. If they take money from your credit card account and very shortly afterwards put it back again, you are at no significant nett loss because when your statement comes, you'll owe the credit card company nothing. All you've lost is a slight temporary reduction in the borrowing power of your card, it would be hard to make an argument that your life has been devastated, because you could always ring the bank and get a raise on the card's limit, or reverse the transaction yourself. If you're talking about the investment earning potential of the price of a few books and CDs for a week, you're not exactly George Soros, are you? It might come to fractions of a cent. The vendor will argue de minimis non curat praetor lex - don't be bothering the court with custard. Or trifles either.

Thirdfox

I'm not giving up just yet :P - well if 100,000 people had signed up and given say 10 euro for their flights that would be 1 million for the airline while they sort out the problem...hardly a small sum of money and they should be censured no?

So - you'd imagine that here the acceptance issue is a non-issue? And that terms would more important in determining when the contract is formed? If there were no terms when would there be valid acceptance? When their automated email gets sent out, when your boarding pass gets sent out etc? For some strange reason it's really bugging me...

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm not giving up just yet :P - well if 100,000 people had signed up and given say 10 euro for their flights that would be 1 million for the airline while they sort out the problem...hardly a small sum of money and they should be censured no?

So - you'd imagine that here the acceptance issue is a non-issue? And that terms would more important in determining when the contract is formed? If there were no terms when would there be valid acceptance? When their automated email gets sent out, when your boarding pass gets sent out etc? For some strange reason it's really bugging me...

That would be some aeroplane...

Sarahaw

So does anyone know when they come out??.....good luck to those on today btw

JCJCJC

Got this in this morning's post:

Dear Candidate,
I am directed by the above-named Society to acknowledge your recent email and subsequent follow-up letter expressed in generally similar terms in which you conveyed your concerns at certain matters in connection with the administration of the Society’s Final Entrance 1 examinations, currently in progress at a well-known Dublin Hotel on the western outskirts of the city, the identity of which is clearly known to you.
Firstly, I wish to state that the Society selected the location in question very carefully in order to afford all potential examination candidates a minimum of inconvenience, be they resident in the greater Dublin area or outside of same, per the addresses for correspondence furnished to the Society. The advantages of the chosen venue are self-evident – it has a room capable of holding the reduced number of candidates currently sitting the examination, it is well served with motorways, local roads, buses and Luas, and it has on-site accommodation and dining facilities etc at reasonable cost.
With regard to your own specific complaints, I can now advise that official representations have been made to the proprietors in relation to same. On foot of those representations, an assurance has been given that no construction work or heavy machinery will be used at this location in the vicinity of the examination hall during any future sittings of examinations.
However, the proprietors have taken very strong exception to your remarks in relation to objectionable odours in the examination hall, and have brought to our attention some remarks in similar vein that have been posted on certain internet discussion boards, which remarks are considered to be potentially injurious to the trading reputation and good name of the business in question. In light of this regrettable practise, and with external expert technical assistance, a discreet programme of air sampling, monitoring, data logging and real-time scientific analysis has been put in place for the past four days in the examination hall and its immediate precincts. The consolidated results of this sampling have now been made available to the Society, and they indicate that during the morning examination periods only, an unacceptably high concentration of certain volatile organic compounds has been present in the venue. Initial spectrographic analyses of the compounds in question indicate strongly that they derive from certain professional adhesives specifically used in the footwear industry, particularly in Australia and the Far East.
Clearly, this is not a matter for which the proprietors of the venue can be held in any way responsible, particularly in light of the contrasting negative findings in the afternoon, early evening and night time sampling results.
The Society has therefore decided that the matter can be resolved to a large extent through the introduction of certain apparel protocols, which will be communicated in due course to all candidates for future sittings. In future, candidates applying for admission to the Society will be expected to present for all examinations in appropriate professional attire. Specifically, the wearing of Uggs, Lugz and trainers generally at the FE1 examinations will henceforth be strongly discouraged or prohibited, in order to eliminate the identified solvents in a gender-neutral and equitable manner.
The Society believes that this measure will deal effectively with the issue of odours as raised by your goodself, and will have the long-term and greater benefit of improving the professional standards of presentation of examination candidates.
Thank you for bringing this important matter to our attention, and may I wish you well in your own current examinations,
Yours faithfully,
Alan Keyes,
Supervisory Invigilator.

Well how about that!

law86

Thanks JCJCJC. Highly entertaining and informative.

glengirlie

JCJCJC wrote: »

Got this in this morning's post:

Dear Candidate,
I am directed by the above-named Society to acknowledge your recent email and subsequent follow-up letter expressed in generally similar terms in which you conveyed your concerns at certain matters in connection with the administration of the Society’s Final Entrance 1 examinations, currently in progress at a well-known Dublin Hotel on the western outskirts of the city, the identity of which is clearly known to you.
Firstly, I wish to state that the Society selected the location in question very carefully in order to afford all potential examination candidates a minimum of inconvenience, be they resident in the greater Dublin area or outside of same, per the addresses for correspondence furnished to the Society. The advantages of the chosen venue are self-evident – it has a room capable of holding the reduced number of candidates currently sitting the examination, it is well served with motorways, local roads, buses and Luas, and it has on-site accommodation and dining facilities etc at reasonable cost.
With regard to your own specific complaints, I can now advise that official representations have been made to the proprietors in relation to same. On foot of those representations, an assurance has been given that no construction work or heavy machinery will be used at this location in the vicinity of the examination hall during any future sittings of examinations.
However, the proprietors have taken very strong exception to your remarks in relation to objectionable odours in the examination hall, and have brought to our attention some remarks in similar vein that have been posted on certain internet discussion boards, which remarks are considered to be potentially injurious to the trading reputation and good name of the business in question. In light of this regrettable practise, and with external expert technical assistance, a discreet programme of air sampling, monitoring, data logging and real-time scientific analysis has been put in place for the past four days in the examination hall and its immediate precincts. The consolidated results of this sampling have now been made available to the Society, and they indicate that during the morning examination periods only, an unacceptably high concentration of certain volatile organic compounds has been present in the venue. Initial spectrographic analyses of the compounds in question indicate strongly that they derive from certain professional adhesives specifically used in the footwear industry, particularly in Australia and the Far East.
Clearly, this is not a matter for which the proprietors of the venue can be held in any way responsible, particularly in light of the contrasting negative findings in the afternoon, early evening and night time sampling results.
The Society has therefore decided that the matter can be resolved to a large extent through the introduction of certain apparel protocols, which will be communicated in due course to all candidates for future sittings. In future, candidates applying for admission to the Society will be expected to present for all examinations in appropriate professional attire. Specifically, the wearing of Uggs, Lugz and trainers generally at the FE1 examinations will henceforth be strongly discouraged or prohibited, in order to eliminate the identified solvents in a gender-neutral and equitable manner.
The Society believes that this measure will deal effectively with the issue of odours as raised by your goodself, and will have the long-term and greater benefit of improving the professional standards of presentation of examination candidates.
Thank you for bringing this important matter to our attention, and may I wish you well in your own current examinations,
Yours faithfully,
Alan Keyes,
Supervisory Invigilator.

Well how about that!

That has to be an April Fools about the Uggs!!!!!!!

Hogzy

Just got the same email.... Wtf?

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Reduce it to basic principles, offer, acceptance, contract formation, unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, breach of terms, breach of warranty, breach of condition etc - if you analyse it correctly and not let yourself be distracted by the modern setting of the fact pattern, it should work out.

Amen. I think one may be getting too bogged down in complications on those kinds of internet formation issues. The reports are informative here and some mistakes made appear to be (1) assuming money needs to be taken from the credit card for consideration to arise (it doesn't) and (2) assuming that an order confirmation is the same as an acceptance (it isn't, but it may be, depending on the language used).

Otherwise, you really just need basic principles. Consider the quality of the "offer". Is it really an offer? If not, what is it? Is there even a contract formed on basic principles? If there is, is it vitiated by anything? Its very difficult to see how (notwithstanding what the examiner has said) that any of the questions raise issues of mutual mistake. I.e. the external observer looking in would see a contract and hence no mutual mistake arises like in Mespil etc. Rather, they tend to be about unilateral mistake (cheap flights, cheap playstations etc) and not the identity cases but rather the basic unilaterla mistake cases (a mistake many people make).

Thirdfox

It's over!

All 8 done... now to see how many actually passed.

I'm off to bed - happy april fool's

Thanks for the explanation Brian - I knew that the those questions would concentrate mainly on the unilateral mistake side but it just bugged me that I couldn't point to a case and say for certain "this is the law" - but then maybe that's what real legal practitioning is (I'm too tired to be getting philosophical now...)


As for a contract exam issue - did anyone spot the fact that the cloakroom ticket has no effect on the proceedings in Q2? No consideration/no new contract and thus it doesn't matter if Frank looked at it or not, the sneaky question was on whether when he purchased the train ticket was there an exemption clause...sneaky! Red hand rule Denning

CFOLEY85

Thirdfox wrote: »

It's over!

All 8 done... now to see how many actually passed.

OMG Thirdfox , did you sit all 8 in this sitting??

Thirdfox

Yup - 3 months in study, last two weeks was 14-15 hours a day, 4 hours sleep... and yet I'm still not dead lol

Maybe slightly delusional now though

At least comparatively it seems to be easier than last time...

blathblath

Guys is anyone else finding it hard to relax n let go!!!! I am so anxious I didn't pass that I am still anaylsing my answers! Jaysus get a life says you! When do peeps think results will be out and are we getting them online?

CFOLEY85

Thirdfox wrote: »

Yup - 3 months in study, last two weeks was 14-15 hours a day, 4 hours sleep... and yet I'm still not dead lol

Maybe slightly delusional now though

At least comparatively it seems to be easier than last time...

Fair play to ya, sitting all 8 in the one sitting is an accomplishment in itself!!!

I nearly calved and I was only sitting 3!! So muchio appreciation to you.

My last three too, so fingers crossed we're all smiles and all our work pays off:D

CFOLEY85

blathblath wrote: »

Guys is anyone else finding it hard to relax n let go!!!! I am so anxious I didn't pass that I am still anaylsing my answers! Jaysus get a life says you! When do peeps think results will be out and are we getting them online?

I know the feeling. Im wide awake since 8. Woke up thinking I had to study, when reality kicked in, it was pretty sweet. Also had a dream about my Tort exam, uuuugggghhh.

Came out from all my exams thinking " Jez that wasnt so bad .." but now that I've time to think, Im thinking " Oh my god I answered those questions SH*T "

Feeling less and less confident the more time I have to think about each exam:mad::mad::mad:

Thirdfox

Results are out early June so relax and enjoy your summer holidays - they've officially begun

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

Results are out early June so relax and enjoy your summer holidays - they've officially begun

Hey Thirdfox, you must be some operator to have a go at all eight in one go! I hope you get all eight. I was wrecked after only three this time. only coming back to some kind of normal today.

JC

Sarahaw

I don't know if anyone here has looked at the ppc1 application form yet.

It requires that you submit proof of having passed the fe1's. The deadline for submission is late April but the fe1 results arn't out until June so how does that work??...,
What happens if you apply for ppc1 now and find out in june you've fail one exam, do you have to wait a whole year to start the following september??

Tks guys!

Hogzy

Sarahaw wrote: »

I don't know if anyone here has looked at the ppc1 application form yet.

It requires that you submit proof of having passed the fe1's. The deadline for submission is late April but the fe1 results arn't out until June so how does that work??...,
What happens if you apply for ppc1 now and find out in june you've fail one exam, do you have to wait a whole year to start the following september??

Tks guys!

Isnt PPC1 on twice a year?

law86

Sarahaw wrote: »

I don't know if anyone here has looked at the ppc1 application form yet.

It requires that you submit proof of having passed the fe1's. The deadline for submission is late April but the fe1 results arn't out until June so how does that work??...,
What happens if you apply for ppc1 now and find out in june you've fail one exam, do you have to wait a whole year to start the following september??

Tks guys!

I'm afraid so, it's this September or next September. Where did you find the PPC1 application form? I can't see it on the website.

Congratulations to everyone who finished up.

hession.law

PPC 1 only starts once a year in September while PPC 2 starts around April time, I thought you had at least till June to make your application for the coming September course...

Sarahaw

law86 wrote: »

Where did you find the PPC1 application form? I can't see it on the website.

the firm i'll be training with sent it out to me.....

So how are you supposed to submit proof of having passed all eight exams in April if the results arn't out til June!...Im confused!!

Miss_F

JCJCJC wrote: »

Got this in this morning's post:

Dear Candidate,
I am directed by the above-named Society to acknowledge your recent email and subsequent follow-up letter expressed in generally similar terms in which you conveyed your concerns at certain matters in connection with the administration of the Society’s Final Entrance 1 examinations, currently in progress at a well-known Dublin Hotel on the western outskirts of the city, the identity of which is clearly known to you.
Firstly, I wish to state that the Society selected the location in question very carefully in order to afford all potential examination candidates a minimum of inconvenience, be they resident in the greater Dublin area or outside of same, per the addresses for correspondence furnished to the Society. The advantages of the chosen venue are self-evident – it has a room capable of holding the reduced number of candidates currently sitting the examination, it is well served with motorways, local roads, buses and Luas, and it has on-site accommodation and dining facilities etc at reasonable cost.
With regard to your own specific complaints, I can now advise that official representations have been made to the proprietors in relation to same. On foot of those representations, an assurance has been given that no construction work or heavy machinery will be used at this location in the vicinity of the examination hall during any future sittings of examinations.
However, the proprietors have taken very strong exception to your remarks in relation to objectionable odours in the examination hall, and have brought to our attention some remarks in similar vein that have been posted on certain internet discussion boards, which remarks are considered to be potentially injurious to the trading reputation and good name of the business in question. In light of this regrettable practise, and with external expert technical assistance, a discreet programme of air sampling, monitoring, data logging and real-time scientific analysis has been put in place for the past four days in the examination hall and its immediate precincts. The consolidated results of this sampling have now been made available to the Society, and they indicate that during the morning examination periods only, an unacceptably high concentration of certain volatile organic compounds has been present in the venue. Initial spectrographic analyses of the compounds in question indicate strongly that they derive from certain professional adhesives specifically used in the footwear industry, particularly in Australia and the Far East.
Clearly, this is not a matter for which the proprietors of the venue can be held in any way responsible, particularly in light of the contrasting negative findings in the afternoon, early evening and night time sampling results.
The Society has therefore decided that the matter can be resolved to a large extent through the introduction of certain apparel protocols, which will be communicated in due course to all candidates for future sittings. In future, candidates applying for admission to the Society will be expected to present for all examinations in appropriate professional attire. Specifically, the wearing of Uggs, Lugz and trainers generally at the FE1 examinations will henceforth be strongly discouraged or prohibited, in order to eliminate the identified solvents in a gender-neutral and equitable manner.
The Society believes that this measure will deal effectively with the issue of odours as raised by your goodself, and will have the long-term and greater benefit of improving the professional standards of presentation of examination candidates.
Thank you for bringing this important matter to our attention, and may I wish you well in your own current examinations,
Yours faithfully,
Alan Keyes,
Supervisory Invigilator.

Well how about that!

So the smell was from everyones shoes?????????

JCJCJC

Miss_F wrote: »

So the smell was from everyones shoes?????????

No, only the Uggs

law86

Sarahaw wrote: »

the firm i'll be training with sent it out to me.....

So how are you supposed to submit proof of having passed all eight exams in April if the results arn't out til June!...Im confused!!

Thanks Sarah. I don't know how you go about filling in the form but I presume that you send proof of the ones you already passed now, and the ones you just sat when you get them. I'm in the same boat, I must ask my employer on Monday.

purpleglory

Sarah,

I'm guessing that you might be doing your apprenticeship with the same firm as I am. I think we just have to send the form into them by April and they have until later in the summer to process it and send it in with the relevant fees to the Law Society.

It gives them time to figure out how many trainees are starting in September and get all of the formalities sorted. I actually must get on to it as I have just been concentrating on the FE1s lately

Dylan123

Just as a way of reflecting all the hard work which we have done for these exams while it is fresh in our minds... and to perhaps improve on the next set after a well deserved break..

Is there anything you would have done differently, or will do differently for the next set?

For me it will be clarity.. Stupid things like remembering the sections of the NFOAF act... remembering case names..

I worked like a dog like most others but one thing i know for sure after the 1st sitting is that i can do a whole lot better than that.. I was happy enough answering five questions on each paper but as a non law student i cant help feeling that a degree in law has to be of some advantage... but then not everyone with a law degree passes 1st time round??? who knows.. anyway fair play to you all and i hope there will be lots of sore heads in the morning if not already!

Ps many thanks for all the posts and help from everyone over the last few months which has been really great!!

JCJCJC

Dylan123 wrote: »

Is there anything you would have done differently, or will do differently for the next set?...

Ps many thanks for all the posts and help from everyone over the last few months which has been really great!!

Don't wear Uggs, and thank you too...

trixabelle86

Miss_F wrote: »

So the smell was from everyones shoes?????????

I think this is the best letter I have ever read... I can't wait to see if in October they say we can't wear uggs... halarious. Rock up in a pair of slippers instead