FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

randomuser77

Hey all

I'm working off an out of date manual for Criminal Law, the Griffith manual for 2009/2010, which seems like it's up to date until the beginning of 2009. I've been trying to do some research on the side and generally haven't found much. However, I did notice that the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 has brought an end to double jeopardy. Anyone else aware of any major legislative changes or any important cases since 2009? Is the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 even that important?

wez99950

Ok so these are what i'm hoping to cover:
Injunctions (only APO and Quia Timet, Posssssibly mandatory)
Charitable trusts
CyPres
Secret Trusts
Resulting
Express (Strong v Bird and DMC)
Constructive Trusts
Satisfaction
Rectification
Maxims
Specific Performance

Then if time (which i probably won't....) Quistclose, Undue Influence, Estoppel

Would i be covered with covering the first lot? Still working part time so am on a major cut down topic wise.

frustratedTC

What's the litigation about?

ryan606

does anyone know what hotel is closest to stay in during the exams?

crystalmice

Well the exams are actually held in a hotel so...;p its expensive though, think they have rooms from 90e. More seriously though, if you are staying anywhere near the red line luas you will be able to get there quickly enough and there are plenty of cheap hotels near connelly station, which is on the red line.

hero82

ryan606 wrote: »

does anyone know what hotel is closest to stay in during the exams?

i stayed in the ibis hotel last time which is only about 10 minute walk from the exam venue.i booked it again this time and it was only 41 eur for the nite!

bob_lob_law

What are the penalties for incitement? Does it vary with the offence or what? Thanks in advance.....

evercloserunion

Does anyone know the name/citation of that case recently where the bartenders were charged and acquitted of manslaughter for serving the guy who drank himself to death? I remember reading that the judge threw out the case because the prosecution hadn't proven causation, I thought the judgement might be handy to read for criminal causation. Think it would be worth digging it out?

JCJCJC

Dolan v Reynolds 2011

New case on bailii overnight, lots of succession law, adverse posession and equity in it for those interested. There's a fleeting mention of separation of powers in it too.

JCJCJC

evercloserunion wrote: »

Does anyone know the name/citation of that case recently where the bartenders were charged and acquitted of manslaughter for serving the guy who drank himself to death? I remember reading that the judge threw out the case because the prosecution hadn't proven causation, I thought the judgement might be handy to read for criminal causation. Think it would be worth digging it out?

Good point. Info here.

The Irish Times, in an analysis of the case, commented that the barmen’s case followed another Irish High Court judgment which also emphasised the personal responsibility of the consumer, rather than that of the providers of the alcohol, for any injury that followed. In that High Court civil case which involved drink driving, Mr Justice Feeney reviewed the law in several common law jurisdictions about the responsibility of bar staff for the actions of those who consume alcohol on their premises. He said there was a wide divergence between Australia and the UK on the one hand, and Canada and the US on the other, in their attitudes towards the responsibilities of alcohol providers. He pointed out that this reflected the different historical and cultural contexts. Both the US and Canada had had years of prohibition, and this was reflected in their continuing approach to alcohol.

The Canadian courts had found that providers owed a broad duty of care to those consuming their alcohol, and US laws in most states held retail establishments accountable for harm, death or other damages caused by an intoxicated customer.

However, in Australia, the courts declined to impose alcohol-provider liability, and in the UK, while each case was fact-dependent, there was a clear reluctance to impose liability except in exceptional circumstances. He agreed with this approach, and found the bar staff in this instance did not owe a duty of care to the drinkdriver.

The Irish Times concluded that this judgment, combined with the acquittal of the barmen, means that, except in exceptional circumstances, criminal responsibility for death or injury arising from consuming large amounts of alcohol rests with the consumer, not the provider.

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

I must have expressed the point badly then Brian, all I had in mind was the GCD observation of the apparent difficulty posed and resolved as you have confirmed in Carmody. Thanks for your replies.

JC

Well, you raised another point then.

It's not inconceivable that someone might think that domestic remedies for complaint about ECHR violations are not very effective if a Court would defer consideration of the ECHR point until after, say, other methods of dealing with the case have been considered. For example, suppose a local authority/housing authority serve a "move on" notice on travellers pursuant to s.10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 (as amended). It is possible that the notice could be flawed on its face and ultra vires and its also possible that it could have been issued in circumstances that could violate certain "due process" rights we've seen developed in Pullen, Donegan and so on.

For a Court to deal with the case on the ultra vires point and find for the Applicant/Plaintiff (depending on the proceedings), would usually mean that the ECHR point is then moot (unless, of course, one argued it was "capable of repetition yet evading review etc).

One could argue that produces an ineffective method of ECHR-compliance scrutiny and causes Article 13 problems.

colonel1

JCJCJC wrote: »

Dolan v Reynolds 2011

New case on bailii overnight, lots of succession law, adverse posession and equity in it for those interested. There's a fleeting mention of separation of powers in it too.

Thanks for that JC. Hope the study is going well.:D

dynamokev

Hi there

Does anyone have the sample answers for the last sitting of EU and Constitutional? ie March 2011. I would really appreciate if you could PM me if you do.

Theres major karma points on offer here!

dinemo6

Hey all,
Hope the study is going well!

Would anybody be so kind as to share some sample answers for Equity, Property, Contract??

And/or a Contract grid....?

First-timer so any help greatly appreciated!!

boomtown84

boomtown84 wrote: »

Did mortgages come up on the last exam and if so was it judgment mortgages or not?
still looking for an exam grid if anybody is kind enough to send me one via pm.

hope the study is going better than mine!!

.

doing

Does anyone here understand the effect Jodifern ltd V Fitzgerald (2004) has on the use of 'subject to contract' as a disclaimer, rendering a document unusable as a way of legitimising an oral contract (1695 statute of Frauds)?

I'm reading a GCD 2009 Contract book, and I can't understand what the author is saying about this case here at all. He doesn't say whose side the Judge ended up on and doesn't quote him, and I can't find anything about the case online so I don't know what to make of it.

He says the judge apparently made some comment that the location of 'subject to contract' in the text affects whether it can be used as a disclaimer of not, but the author uses the phrase 'may be open to a process of construction', and I have no idea what he means by that. Then when he outlines the case I cannot understand what that has to do with what the judge is supposed to have said about 'subject to contract'.

The case seems to be about a man who was trying to use correspondence, where they mention details about their oral agreement, as the necessary notes and memorandums to legitimise the oral contract - he was ignoring the notes and memorandums that had 'subject to contract' on it and concentrating on these other documents. The judge replied said the necessary info was in the notes and memorandums headed 'subject to contract', and that all the other correspondence was useless to that end, so he had no case.

I don't understand what this has to do with what the Judge is supposed to have said? Or even what exactly the Judge actually said at all because of the 'open to a process of construction' phrase used by the author of the manual. All I know is that he may have said something important about 'subject to contract'.


If anyone can clarify this it would be very helpful.

bob_lob_law

How is criminal marked? Did people find it easy to pass? Seems like you need to know a bit of everything to get by.

brian__foley

doing wrote: »

Does anyone here understand the effect Jodifern ltd V Fitzgerald (2004) has on the use of 'subject to contract' as a disclaimer, rendering a document unusable as a way of legitimising an oral contract (1695 statute of Frauds)?

I'm reading a GCD 2009 Contract book, and I can't understand what the author is saying about this case here at all. He doesn't say whose side the Judge ended up on and doesn't quote him, and I can't find anything about the case online so I don't know what to make of it.

He says the judge apparently made some comment that the location of 'subject to contract' in the text affects whether it can be used as a disclaimer of not, but the author uses the phrase 'may be open to a process of construction', and I have no idea what he means by that. Then when he outlines the case I cannot understand what that has to do with what the judge is supposed to have said about 'subject to contract'.

The case seems to be about a man who was trying to use correspondence, where they mention details about their oral agreement, as the necessary notes and memorandums to legitimise the oral contract - he was ignoring the notes and memorandums that had 'subject to contract' on it and concentrating on these other documents. The judge replied said the necessary info was in the notes and memorandums headed 'subject to contract', and that all the other correspondence was useless to that end, so he had no case.

I don't understand what this has to do with what the Judge is supposed to have said? Or even what exactly the Judge actually said at all because of the 'open to a process of construction' phrase used by the author of the manual. All I know is that he may have said something important about 'subject to contract'.


If anyone can clarify this it would be very helpful.

Does the context of the discussion not assist? I mean, it arises right after a discussion of Kelly v Park Hall School et al - i.e. the line of authority which concluded with the definitive view that once "subject to contract" is in a document the document can't form part of the note of memorandum - i.e. no construction, no interpretation of what the parties meant - once its there, it can't form part of a note or memorandum.

Then, as you say, Barron in Jodifern, seemed to say the relevance of the use of the term was a matter of construction -i.e. interpretation? I'm not seeing the difficulty here.

Then you have to ask did Barron J really mean to re-open the decision in Boyle v Lee or was he dealing with something different? Hence the text that follows in the manual which I assume you are referring to follows:-

"Jodifern is a difficult case to understand. It was not the case that the plaintiff was seeking to set up a concluded oral agreement evidenced by a note or memorandum in writing thereof signed by the defendants. Rather, the plaintiff’s case was simply that written agreements existed. The defendant’s case, it appears, is that those documents were not really concluded contracts because subsequent correspondence was headed “subject to contract/contract denied”. Thus, the reliance, it seemed on “subject to contract” was in the first sense described above – i.e. to negate the existence of agreement, not to negate the existence of a note or memorandum. It was, however, recognized that the written documents may be viewed as somewhat incomplete. Thus, the plaintiff seemed to argue that the documents themselves could be a note or memorandum of the essential terms sufficient for the Statute and no “subject to contract” appeared on those documents. The difficulty here was the agreements did not contain the essential terms and the letters which followed (which did contain them) were headed subject to contract/contract denied.

Thus, it may be case that the Supreme Court (at least Barron J) was only referring to how the positioning of “subject to contract” may affect the question of whether a contract existed in the first place.[1] Alternatively, the Court (at least Barron J) may be saying that even in documents purporting to be a note or memorandum, subject to contract is only “fatal” if it appears at the head of the document. That would have serious knock on effects for where the note is cobbled together from multiple (but cross-referring) documents."

So, you have a Court - on first blush - apparently saying something contrary to Boyle v Lee, but when you examine the decision and the case, you see that the point is not being made that "subject to contract" may or may not negate a note or memorandum (of course it does), but that it may or may note negate a contract. Those are very different things.

randomuser77

Oh dear! My manual doesn't have very much on the consequences of incorporation. I don't suppose anyone would have a sample answer that they'd be willing to share with me please?

randomuser77

randomuser77 wrote: »

Oh dear! My manual doesn't have very much on the consequences of incorporation. I don't suppose anyone would have a sample answer that they'd be willing to share with me please?

Just to add to this, I have various Company related materials that I can give you in return including sample answers for Ultra Vires, Corporate Personality etc.

crystalmice

randomuser77 wrote: »

Just to add to this, I have various Company related materials that I can give you in return including sample answers for Ultra Vires, Corporate Personality etc.

If you can tell me some exam questions (year and number) on that topic I can search the answers I have, I more than likely have one on it somewhere! PM me

MoneyMilo

Hey, anyone doing contract looked at Q3 on the April 09 paper? (the one about the Waterford Crystal auction, if anyone remembers?)

Does anyone have a take on what the conclusion should be to the contract between Keelin and Eoin? The examiner says that Mutual Mistake should be mentioned, but I don't know how that comes into it..?

If anyone has looked at the Question, I'd really appreciate their views on it. Cheers

mrsuperclear

MoneyMilo wrote: »

Hey, anyone doing contract looked at Q3 on the April 09 paper? (the one about the Waterford Crystal auction, if anyone remembers?)

Does anyone have a take on what the conclusion should be to the contract between Keelin and Eoin? The examiner says that Mutual Mistake should be mentioned, but I don't know how that comes into it..?

If anyone has looked at the Question, I'd really appreciate their views on it. Cheers

By a magical coincidence I just did that question myself. I was a bit confused by that "mutual mistake" craic as well. Seems completely irrelevant so I don't know what the examiner was smoking either. I thought it was completely unilateral, cited a few cases and said the court would look at whether a reasonable person thinks they were contracting for Waterford crystal as opposed to "fine crystal".. The only argument I could think of outside that was Smith v Hughes (the old oats for horses one) where they said the PL was not under an obligation to correct the DEF misapprehension. I think the whole point of that was that the age of the oats weren't a term of the contract though so Eoin would have to argue that it wasn't a term of the contract that he was selling Waterford Crystal...doable.

Maybe the examiner just wanted people to mention the fact mutual mistake was irrelevant? idk....

randomuser77

mrsuperclear wrote: »

By a magical coincidence I just did that question myself. I was a bit confused by that "mutual mistake" craic as well. Seems completely irrelevant so I don't know what the examiner was smoking either. I thought it was completely unilateral, cited a few cases and said the court would look at whether a reasonable person thinks they were contracting for Waterford crystal as opposed to "fine crystal".. The only argument I could think of outside that was Smith v Hughes (the old oats for horses one) where they said the PL was not under an obligation to correct the DEF misapprehension. I think the whole point of that was that the age of the oats weren't a term of the contract though so Eoin would have to argue that it wasn't a term of the contract that he was selling Waterford Crystal...doable.

Maybe the examiner just wanted people to mention the fact mutual mistake was irrelevant? idk....

Haven't looked at the question so I don't know if this is relevant. I'm not looking at my notes either so this may also be incorrect/vague. What I'm saying anyway is that there seems to be a significant overlap between mutual mistake and unilateral mistake. In mutual mistake Wood v Scarth (for instance) suggests that a contract was valid as a reasonable person would have thought that there was no mistake (or something like that). By way of contrast, in Hartog v Colin & Shields, it was held that there was a unilateral mistake because one of the parties should have known that there was a mistake. When dealing with one or other of the mistakes then it's (probably) a good idea to see if there was a mistake that one of the parties should have noticed (=unilateral mistake) or a mistake that a reasonable party would have noticed (=mutual mistake). As they are so close, you should probably discuss both when either of them comes up in a question. That's what I reckon I'll do anyway.

JLex

Hi,
Quick question, what people are revising for Company?
I read the GCD manual twice, and planning to spend next week on detailed revision of certain topics. Not sure, which topics I shall focus on?

randomuser77

juliach wrote: »

Hi,
Quick question, what people are revising for Company?
I read the GCD manual twice, and planning to spend next week on detailed revision of certain topics. Not sure, which topics I shall focus on?

This may be of interest!

I only started studying Company two days ago so I'll be cutting like crazy but I'm studying:

Incorporation: Types of companies/documentation (incl; Pre-incorporation Contracts, s.25 Contracts and Consequences of Incorporation)
Corporate Personality
Ultra Vires
Director's Duties/Restriction and Disqualification/Reckless and Fraudulent Trading
Shareholder's Protections
Corporate Borrowings/Retention of Title Clauses
and Winding Up

With what time (if any) I have remaining I intend to study:
Corporate Contracts
Share Transfers
and Examinership

If anyone has a view on my study plan then please make yourself heard.

JLex

hi, thanks for that.
think in addition i am going to study disposition of companies assets as this is related to winding up...
in relation to studying- i have been writing every case from GCD manual and 5 key words to that case and same to sections. really helps when you have to do a quick revision the day before.:D

cooper10

Totally freaked out - haven't started studying yet and have Constitutional and EU (worst two EVER!). Does anyone have any tips on what to concentrate on? Really haven't a clue where to start

cooper10

boomtown84 wrote: »

B*ll*cks!:D

also missing 'passing off' and occupiers......anybody got any tips??

Passing Off was on the last paper - probably not likely to come up again so soon. I don't think Defamation was a whole ques on the last one (think it was a minor part of a question) so prob likely it'll be there. It is long though

randomuser77

juliach wrote: »

hi, thanks for that.
think in addition i am going to study disposition of companies assets as this is related to winding up...
in relation to studying- i have been writing every case from GCD manual and 5 key words to that case and same to sections. really helps when you have to do a quick revision the day before.:D

That sounds good. Well done on being so prepared!

I'm thinking about doing disposition of assets too, if I can work quickly enough on what I have set out to do, but have you seen it appear in a question involving winding up?

I'm only omitting disposition of assets because it appeared on the last paper, although I know that may not be a good indicator of whether it's going to appear or not.