FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Dal86 · 29-09-2011 9:13pm

Just wondering what the consensus is regarding consumer protection in contract law - is it worth doing?

garethj · 30-09-2011 8:37am

Dal86 wrote: »

Just wondering what the consensus is regarding consumer protection in contract law - is it worth doing?

I'm most definitely leaving it out - plenty more things of, in my own opinion, more importance and more of a chance of coming up. Do your own thing however and if you feel that it might come up dont risk it!

k8lint · 30-09-2011 9:43am

Hi all!
Im new to Boards and was wondering if anyone has looked at Q 2 Constitutional Law from April 09, he doesnt say anything about it in the reports. Was wondering if right to privacy, Cogley, Herrity, Atherton cases are enough? Remedies, injunction restraining broadcasting or damages after?
I dont really see how his family or the Garda fit in?
If anybody could help me out with this Id be very grateful!
Thanks

brannid3 · 30-09-2011 12:39pm

Anyone leaving medical negligence in tort out?

Dal86 · 30-09-2011 12:50pm

brannid3 wrote: »

Anyone leaving medical negligence in tort out?

Independent tipped that as one that was a must to do so I am definitely doing it.

Hope that helps.

Dal86 · 30-09-2011 12:51pm

garethj wrote: »

Dal86 wrote: »

Just wondering what the consensus is regarding consumer protection in contract law - is it worth doing?

I'm most definitely leaving it out - plenty more things of, in my own opinion, more importance and more of a chance of coming up. Do your own thing however and if you feel that it might come up dont risk it!

Great thanks!

brannid3 · 30-09-2011 1:01pm

Dal86 wrote: »

Independent tipped that as one that was a must to do so I am definitely doing it.

Hope that helps.

Jaysus, hope they like a nutshell standard answer for it so if I get stuck for questions :P

Thanks!

Caoileann · 30-09-2011 1:09pm

I was wondering if most study both types of estoppels? She seems to be much more fond of promissory!

brannid3 · 30-09-2011 1:12pm

Caoileann wrote: »

I was wondering if most study both types of estoppels? She seems to be much more fond of promissory!

I was thinking that myself, I am going to look over proprietary but all my focus is on promissory.My lecturer left it out last year and we had studied it in second year already so he seemed to think it wasn't important and he knew the majority of us were taking these exams.Other could have different views though.

adele1 · 30-09-2011 1:27pm

What are people concentrating on for Constitutional as it draws closer?

President / Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

steph86 · 30-09-2011 2:04pm

adele1 wrote: »

What are people concentrating on for Constitutional as it draws closer?

President / Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

hey, i'm doing the same as that except im not doing A.G or religion, doing property and family instead. Cant believe its next week!

kelmchugh · 30-09-2011 2:08pm

hey guys, as regards defamation in tort, can anybody help me as regards online defamation of a person, eg on a message board? I think I stumbled across it somewhere on this thread ages ago but I'm lost trying to find it now! Any help appreciated.

garethj · 30-09-2011 2:17pm

kelmchugh wrote: »

hey guys, as regards defamation in tort, can anybody help me as regards online defamation of a person, eg on a message board? I think I stumbled across it somewhere on this thread ages ago but I'm lost trying to find it now! Any help appreciated.

As far as I know for the purposes of Section 6(2) of the 2009 Act - defamations occurs when a defamatory statement (See section 2) is published by any means - any means would indicate publication by any medium whatsoever be it newspapers, text messages, online mediums and so forth.

I could quite possibly be wrong but that would be my understanding of it anyway. Could anyone else shed some light on this? I know in 2010 Oct - there was some publication via a social networking site - I presume that this would satisfy the publication requirement for the act?

kelmchugh · 30-09-2011 2:39pm

thanks pal, you were on it very quick! Is there anyone else out there who knows of any cases/ articles as regards this online defamation. Also, may be useful in realm of privacy, Rio ferdinand lost his injunction case on a kiss and tell story, mainly as he was a role model at the time as english captain....similar to case of naomi campbell...not sure if they are of utmost importance but they are stuck in my head!

JCJCJC · 30-09-2011 2:57pm

adele1 wrote: »

What are people concentrating on for Constitutional as it draws closer?

President / Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

I've done quite a bit on retrospective legislation and unconstitutional legislation, because of the March 2011 paper.

NoQuarter · 30-09-2011 3:28pm

Hi all, would anyone be able to PM me on a couple of tort problem questions from recent FE1s?

Any questions at all really, if you guys could copy and paste one or two to me that would be great! Id search the thread if it wasnt over 400 pages long!

crystalmice · 30-09-2011 4:07pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Hi all, would anyone be able to PM me on a couple of tort problem questions from recent FE1s?

Any questions at all really, if you guys could copy and paste one or two to me that would be great! Id search the thread if it wasnt over 400 pages long!

sent you on two from last years paper, word limit on pms meant its in 4 parts, sorry!

emooo · 30-09-2011 4:50pm

crystalmice wrote: »

sent you on two from last years paper, word limit on pms meant its in 4 parts, sorry!

HI crystalmice, you could possibly sent them on to myself also? Sorry to be so cheeky but havent seen able to order online papers for over a week now, issues with lawsoc website! Anyone having same problem? Thanks so much if you can

cooper10 · 30-09-2011 4:58pm

steph86 wrote: »

adele1 wrote: »

What are people concentrating on for Constitutional as it draws closer?

President / Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

hey, i'm doing the same as that except im not doing A.G or religion, doing property and family instead. Cant believe its next week!

Does anyone know if presumption of constitutionality / judicial review was on the March 2011 paper?

bob_lob_law · 30-09-2011 5:40pm

cooper10 wrote: »

Does anyone know if presumption of constitutionality / judicial review was on the March 2011 paper?

No presumption of constitutionality q on last paper, was on the march 2010 paper. Nothing judicial review-esque either.

cooper10 · 30-09-2011 6:19pm

bob_lob_law wrote: »

cooper10 wrote: »

Does anyone know if presumption of constitutionality / judicial review was on the March 2011 paper?

No presumption of constitutionality q on last paper, was on the march 2010 paper. Nothing judicial review-esque either.

thanks for that - maybe it's due a run so!

JCJCJC · 30-09-2011 7:33pm

cooper10 wrote: »

thanks for that - maybe it's due a run so!

Well, Dr Carolan in his lecture on the 20 most important cases of 2010 last March in UCD said that Meadows was one of them. I've spent most of today re-reading it. It's one mofu of a judicial review case, there's more law in it than a lot of textbooks. It covers an immense amount of Irish and British judicial review.

hero82 · 30-09-2011 10:09pm

anyone think abortion might come up in constitutional?i havnt looked at it and was just wondering what people think?

JCJCJC · 30-09-2011 10:11pm

hero82 wrote: »

anyone think abortion might come up in constitutional?i havnt looked at it and was just wondering what people think?

I doubt it - I haven't looked at it and won't be looking at it.

hero82 · 30-09-2011 10:16pm

JCJCJC wrote: »

I doubt it - I haven't looked at it and won't be looking at it.

ya i hope so.!im just starting to freak out a little bit now.really feeling the pressure and im worried he will put up the couple of topics that i havn't touched.!!

bob_lob_law · 30-09-2011 10:24pm

hero82 wrote: »

ya i hope so.!im just starting to freak out a little bit now.really feeling the pressure and im worried he will put up the couple of topics that i havn't touched.!!

Chap in Griffith said examiners don't tend to ask it as it's such a charged issue. I'm losing the will to live at this point.

hero82 · 30-09-2011 10:28pm

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Chap in Griffith said examiners don't tend to ask it as it's such a charged issue. I'm losing the will to live at this point.

same here.its bloody painful!!praying that it will be a nice paper!!!

Hogzy · 30-09-2011 11:11pm

hero82 wrote: »

anyone think abortion might come up in constitutional?i havnt looked at it and was just wondering what people think?

Is there any other case on abortion that is important, bar the X Case of course.

evercloserunion · 01-10-2011 1:07am

Caoileann wrote: »

I was wondering if most study both types of estoppels? She seems to be much more fond of promissory!

I would have been of the mind that proprietary estoppel is more likely to arise in equity, while promissory is more likely to be examined in contract.

bob_lob_law · 01-10-2011 10:31am

JCJCJC wrote: »

I've found an article by H Delaney on Westlaw re retrospective legislation. She cites Dublin Heating Co v Hefferon [1992] ILRM 51. That case concerned an attempt to criminalise reckless trading post-facto. I'm increasingly certain the question was really about the constitutionality of retrospective legislation and that is what the best advice to the client should be about. The client can come in the door saying he wants the trial stopped for ABC reason, but what does that matter? It seems to me that any solr could say you have much better legal grounds on XYZ reason. Publicity might only get you postponement for a fade period, nuke the act under A15 and you have killed off the matter for ever, the only people who'll ever know your name will be law students and they don't count for much.

It was an A15 question.

JC

Hi JC is the case you reference on Bailii? I couldn't see it, I haven't looked at retroactive legislation at all so I'm a bit stumped by it. Doesn't seem to be covered in the griffith manual either. Unless I'm missing something?

FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Comments