FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

trying to cram

smjsmj wrote: »

I sat eu in the last sitting and done the course with griffith. i thought the lecturer was really good. eu isnt a great subject so whoever you do it with its gonna be boring, i done the intensive one day revision with jenny too and she went through past questions and how to go about answering them, which i thought was so beneficial to me in the exam. would definetly recommend her.
Constitutional im only sitting now, went with griffith college again, wouldnt be a great fan of david llangwaller. i think he has a vast knowledge of constitutional law, but teaching wise i didnt think he was great.( in my opinion) other lecturers go through questions with you in class and show you how to approach a problem question. the equity and company lecturers were great for that.

Independent i havent heard much about except val corbett is meant to be brill at tort. i was with gcd and thought the lecturer was really good too.

City colleges i believe is only newly open so i havent heard anything on that.
I would recommend griffith all the way.

For constitutional - I did it with BF - failed and then in Griffith with DL- was better- also the videos are great in GCD as that great guy Max who records the lectures breaks down each topic into headings: eg intro on consideration - old law - current law - rule in pinnels case, it just means when revising you dont have to listen to the whole lecture just the bit you are finding challenging. I think though cummiskey is a good lecturer too - havent had her for constitutional - but she is very good at Contract.
European with Gary in IC was brilliant - got it first go, but also did the one day in GCD just to be extra strong- think that the lecturer in GCD was great too. But I would go with IC as his slides are brilliant. The way these grind courses have all splintered off - I really advise dont choose out of convenience eg lecture times or in a building all in the one place - choose on the basis of the lecturer. Eg hands down PC for land law - if she was in Belfast, I would attend there, or the same for CP in Criminal and GCD guy for equity. Luckily they are all online too.

I strongly recommend that if you do fail a topic with one lecturer and can afford to (these courses dont come cheap ) just do it with a different lecturer the next time - you wont feel as demoralised as some of us sensitive souls can feel when failing these exams.

123A

Contract Law.

Anyone know the facts of Eurymedon case?
Who sued stevedores for damage of goods,read ship owners in one place and owners of goods in another, and also what has this got to do with duty owed to a third party?
Thank you,
Confused and stressed!

corkgirl88

HI,

I am looking for criminal law examiners report for march 2011.

If anyone is willing to send it to me, I am willing to swop all Griffith sample answers i have for equity, tort, constitutional and eu.

brannid3

123A wrote: »

Contract Law.

Anyone know the facts of Eurymedon case?
Who sued stevedores for damage of goods,read ship owners in one place and owners of goods in another, and also what has this got to do with duty owed to a third party?
Thank you,
Confused and stressed!

Hi,I just know the case really, it is one of the exemptions to including third parties into a contract.It's the agency concept.So privity keeps the contract only enforceable between the the parties that enter it unless it can be brought under the exemptions.

The facts were that machinery was being transported fron uk to new zealand.Consignors in England contracted a carrier.The contract contained any liability of the carriers,their employees etc to be limited.
The carriers employed the defendant stevedores to unload machinery.Damage was caused due to the stevedore negligence but the majority of privy council held that the defs were able to rely on the limitation clause.
The plaintiffs (Consignors) were trying to say that the limitation clause was only between the Consignor and the Carrier and it had nothing to do with the stevedores so the clause couldn't work.The agency theory brought the defendant stevedores under the Carriers exemption clause because they were working for them.

I don't know if that helps at all but if you get a chance look over Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones 1962 it is basically where the ruling of the Eurymedon derived from.

Four conditions (nabbed from the Clarke book) in that case were used to see if the third party could benefit from an exemption clause

1)contract must be made clear that the stevedore is intended to be protected
2)contract clearly provides that the carrier has status of an agent for the purpose of obtaining the benefit for principal
3)carrier has authority to contract on stevedores behalf
4)no difficulties in relation to consideration

123A

Thanks very much for the quick and helpful reply Brannid3!

smjsmj

what did everyone think of constitutional?
thought it was do able but cant believe there was no essay on sop, no evidence wrongfully obtained, no president was really surprised.

glengirlie

smjsmj wrote: »

what did everyone think of constitutional?
thought it was do able but cant believe there was no essay on sop, no evidence wrongfully obtained, no president was really surprised.

Thought it was an ok paper, march 11 was nicer than this. Was surprised at the mix of topics, wud love to hve done to religion question but hadnt studied it. Didnt like the choice in the case based questions. I had a feeling there would be no president as it was just too easy a topic and the AG was done a lot lately. Overall happy enough, here's hoping contract and criminl go my way

ElmoLaw

smjsmj wrote: »

what did everyone think of constitutional?
thought it was do able but cant believe there was no essay on sop, no evidence wrongfully obtained, no president was really surprised.

how is he as a marker? is he fair or hard (hopefully easy this time)
doable- yes and plenty of room for BS - do you need lots of caselaw to pass

frustratedTC

CP for IC is brilliant, I did really well in it. Thanks CP!
VC in IC for tort and contract is also great. Passed them too, he's got predictions down too.
MC in Company, is probably the best lecturer I've had, awaiting on the results though but found him brilliant
BF for equity is good, but i wished he'd have followed the manual, but he's a very good explainer!

evercloserunion

Couldn't drag my lazy ass out to Red Cow this morning to drop in the statutes for contract. Hope it's true that we can drop them in tomorrow!

crystalmice

evercloserunion wrote: »

Couldn't drag my lazy ass out to Red Cow this morning to drop in the statutes for contract. Hope it's true that we can drop them in tomorrow!

I saw plenty of people handing them in around 9am before company, an invigilator brought a stack of legislation into the hall about 45mins into the exam an gave then back, So you will get it even if you only hand it in tomoro, you just mightnt get it til awhile into the exam!

LawNerd2011

Thanks for all the responses guys. It really is great to hear people's experiences and opinions as it's a lot of money to spend. Right now I'm thinking BF in CIty Colleges for EU and DL in GCD for Constitutional. I hope I'm making the right decision. It seems that there isn't a stand out lecturer for these subjects.

P.S. That's great advice trying to cram!

glengirlie

ElmoLaw wrote: »

how is he as a marker? is he fair or hard (hopefully easy this time)
doable- yes and plenty of room for BS - do you need lots of caselaw to pass

From what I've heard, fair enough marker, defo plenty of room for BS. Can anyone tell me what they answered question 2 on?

cooper10

From what I've heard, fair enough marker, defo plenty of room for BS. Can anyone tell me what they answered question 2 on?[/Quote]

which one was qs 2? I thought it was horrific, nothing I studied came up apart from privacy and a bit of the due course of law qs. What was the Art 34 qs - the courts? I learned President AND Oireachtas given the year that was in it. Sick!!!

RebelScorned

cooper10 wrote: »

From what I've heard, fair enough marker, defo plenty of room for BS. Can anyone tell me what they answered question 2 on?

which one was qs 2? I thought it was horrific, nothing I studied came up apart from privacy and a bit of the due course of law qs. What was the Art 34 qs - the courts? I learned President AND Oireachtas given the year that was in it. Sick!!![/QUOTE]

I am actually afraid to look at my notes to see if I said the right stuff- it's all such a blur already- i was delighted with privacy essay, due course was fine but I couldn't really remember the casenames, just drew a mini blank whilst I was doing them, for William I wrote about equality/socio economic rights, for Barry and his wretched sign I wrote about livelihood/property rights and then my fifth q was a stab at the case note q at the back- I did Crotty because I was determined to get in some locus standi and SOP stuff that I spent hours going over it, and I basically chanced my arm with the NAMA case trying to remember what I could from newspapers last year.

Overall, just can't call it really. Paper was hugely rights oriented, I was very surprised to see no SOP, no Pres, no Oireachtas qs, didn't see right to life coming at all and avoided Q2 like the plague!

Dust myself off now and onto contract for tomorrow and then I will be halfway there (and it's my birthday!)

Does anybody know when results are actually due out?

trasla7

Did anyone address the issue of the by-law in question one.

was this even relevant to delegated legislation?

tricky paper overall

glengirlie

RebelScorned wrote: »

which one was qs 2? I thought it was horrific, nothing I studied came up apart from privacy and a bit of the due course of law qs. What was the Art 34 qs - the courts? I learned President AND Oireachtas given the year that was in it. Sick!!!

I am actually afraid to look at my notes to see if I said the right stuff- it's all such a blur already- i was delighted with privacy essay, due course was fine but I couldn't really remember the casenames, just drew a mini blank whilst I was doing them, for William I wrote about equality/socio economic rights, for Barry and his wretched sign I wrote about livelihood/property rights and then my fifth q was a stab at the case note q at the back- I did Crotty because I was determined to get in some locus standi and SOP stuff that I spent hours going over it, and I basically chanced my arm with the NAMA case trying to remember what I could from newspapers last year.

Overall, just can't call it really. Paper was hugely rights oriented, I was very surprised to see no SOP, no Pres, no Oireachtas qs, didn't see right to life coming at all and avoided Q2 like the plague!

Dust myself off now and onto contract for tomorrow and then I will be halfway there (and it's my birthday!)

Does anybody know when results are actually due out?[/QUOTE]
Question 2 was the const reqmt tht justice be administered in public! I did it, but wasnt sure about it, went on about judiciary etc but wasnt all that confident about it. was prob on the right track. I did William's question as well but I put in equality, freedom of associations and some property rights, I felt that the first guy with the sign didnt really apply to property as he never went to court, and it was the local authority that pulled him up on it, eventho its not specific to criminal. Again I am prob out with that-my interpretation could be way off, here's hoping for 50.

Yes time to dust down and off to contract tomorrow then one left


Results usually come out the end of November, they did last year anyways, but the exams were a week earlier, so I reckon maybe first wk of December, altho they were rather speedy with the results for the Spring set....fingers crossed!!! We'll enjoy our 30 odd days before we kick off a course in Griffith or Ind or the new place again!!!

PS: Happy Birthday!!!

frustratedTC

randomuser77 wrote: »

Not bad!

Question 7 was weird though. What was the story with Jackie? I've heard people say things like fraudulent trading or s29 or s31 but no one seems sure.

Was it not separate legal personality as Jackie's a connected person

coco13

trasla7 wrote: »

Did anyone address the issue of the by-law in question one.

was this even relevant to delegated legislation?

tricky paper overall

Yeah I dealt with the non delegation doctrine here together with property rights and livelihood. Even though we didn't see the parent act I would argue that the byelaw is a secondary piece of legislation by the executive which could be potentially ultra vires the ministers powers etc etc

trasla7

coco13 wrote: »

Yeah I dealt with the non delegation doctrine here together with property rights and livelihood. Even though we didn't see the parent act I would argue that the byelaw is a secondary piece of legislation by the executive which could be potentially ultra vires the ministers powers etc etc

sweet! thats exactly what i said in my answer and was hoping that would be grand because my property and livilhood bit, even though i know them well enough, was answered hopelessly (just didnt apply the law to the facts at all!)

thank God, i got 1 piece of the question done competently anyway

Cherry_Angel

Would anyone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be kind enough to pass me on some Sample Answers for Contract tomorrow...

In absolute Dire Straits at the moment!!! :(:(:(:(

bob_lob_law

Just thinking, was the question with William anything to do with fair procedures in administrative decisions? I just did equality/non justiciable. Hate doing post-mortems but can't help it!

Did the privacy essay which was fairly dodgy, was at pains to link it to the living instrument interpretation bar McGee really. Bluffed the rest. Thankfully I had covered the refusal of medical treatment, so I was able to give that a good stab. He seemed to emphasise "Ireland" in the question but I threw the house of lords decision in Re A (Conjoined Twins) from criminal, so I hope I get some marks for that.

Otherwise made a good stab at the religion question and the adverse inferences/access to solicitor. Probably the hardest FE-1 I've done so far, gave it everything I had, was writing up till the end practically. Usually I'm quite good with time and come in under but today was just a killer! Bit of respite now before EU/Criminal next week. I hope every else managed ok!

law girl

I bet Dana would have nailed the constitutional paper...!!:D

law girl

I wonder would anyone be able to list what came up on the last contact paper, I appear to mislaid the March 2011 paper...

LSH

law girl wrote: »

I wonder would anyone be able to list what came up on the last contact paper, I appear to mislaid the March 2011 paper...

Q1 OFFER / INVITATION TO TREAT, COUNTER OFFER, COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE AND LAW RELATING TO AUCTIONS

Q2 INCORP OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES / CAPACITY

Q3 ILLEGALITY AND EFFECT ON A CONTRACT, TERMS OF A CONTRACT

Q4 FRUSTRATION / DURESS

Q5 DOCTRINE OF CONSID / PROM EST

Q6 DAMAGES FOR MENTAL DISTRESS
Q6 B AWARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES, RESTITU, OR AN ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FOR BREACH

Q7 IMPLIED TERMS - COLLATERAL TERMS IN COMM CONTRACTS
Q7 B DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

Q8 CIRCUMSTANCES WILL A UNILAT MISTAKE RENDER A CONTRACT VOID OR VOIDABLE.

law girl

LSH wrote: »

Q1 OFFER / INVITATION TO TREAT, COUNTER OFFER, COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE AND LAW RELATING TO AUCTIONS

Q2 INCORP OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES / CAPACITY

Q3 ILLEGALITY AND EFFECT ON A CONTRACT, TERMS OF A CONTRACT

Q4 FRUSTRATION / DURESS

Q5 DOCTRINE OF CONSID / PROM EST

Q6 DAMAGES FOR MENTAL DISTRESS
Q6 B AWARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES, RESTITU, OR AN ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FOR BREACH

Q7 IMPLIED TERMS - COLLATERAL TERMS IN COMM CONTRACTS
Q7 B DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

Q8 CIRCUMSTANCES WILL A UNILAT MISTAKE RENDER A CONTRACT VOID OR VOIDABLE.

Thank you kindly...really not looking forward to tomorrow!

JCJCJC

trasla7 wrote: »

Did anyone address the issue of the by-law in question one.

was this even relevant to delegated legislation?

tricky paper overall

I had lunch with Dr Hogzy SC after the exam and we went very different ways on that question. I thought property rights and lvelihood were a bit peripheral, Barry had already acknowledged the curtailment of his property rights by seeking permission for the business in the first place. I could be all wrong, but I actually thought the bigger obvious issue was a straightforward Wednesbury-type review of the reasonableness of the decision to make and apply the byelaws. Wednesbury leased a guy their cinema, and then said you can't let in 16-yr-olds, not even to watch Postman Pat. This council permitted the guy to run a lawnmower business, then said you can't put up a four-foot sign under any circumstances. There's where I saw a paralell - I thought. That then opened Meadows, Keegan and O'Keeffe and their adoption of Wednesbury and rejection of Mahmood and Bugdaycay Super-wednesbury. I could be a mile off course, all comments welcome.
We definitely hadn't enough info to think that a challenge to the bylaws on exceeding principles and policies in a parent act was a runner, I'm fairly happy that's not what it was about.

I liked the case-note question, did that first as a confidence-booster, I did Crotty and Dellway.

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

We definitely hadn't enough info to think that a challenge to the bylaws on exceeding principles and policies in a parent act was a runner, I'm fairly happy that's not what it was about.

^^^
I would definitely agree with this.

I think the examiner was trying to throw off students with the By-Law. Just because there is a by law in the question does not mean it touches on the Non Delegation Doctrine. There wasnt even a parent act in the question so i dont know why delegation would be an issue.

I could be wrong though. I have failed this paper numerous times so im not in a position to call it really. Well see how right i was in November i suppose.

FYI - I talked about Property/Livelihood and how there may have been an unjust attack on his property/livelihood. I went into a spiel about Tuohy and Heaney Proportionality and whether the restriction was arbitrary and unfair and whether it restricted Barry's rights as little as possible. I also talked about how property and advertising can be restricted in the common good and talked about Murphy v IRTC and Colgan v IRTC
I brought in Quinn Supermarkets and said that the rights of Barry could be harmonised with the rights of his neighbour and the sign could be turned off at night, and this was evidence that what ever the achievement of the law was, it could be achieved by a lesser means (depending on the states justification)

Who Knows?

JCJCJC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Just thinking, was the question with William anything to do with fair procedures in administrative decisions?

I thought William's story was very close to O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation - traveller seeking housing basically. The imminent baby added urgency. O'Reilly was an example of where the court said 'no' to distributing resources, pure classic sop doctrine, they let that to the executive. Same thing in Frawley's two cases - mad a a hatter, swallowed the radio, batteries and all, into recycling before his time obviously, needed a special psych unit with a big fence around it but court said no, not our job. In recent times there has been a shift, re F(N), TD and DB's case, courts now willing to order the provision of facilities so Willie might have a chance. TD and DB had urgency because they were young, they couldn't afford to wait years for facilities.
Re the decision to house him in a halting site - a matter for expertise that courts don't have, so they'd be slow to disturb that one - some Canadian law on that.
O'Reilly & Conway v Limerick County Council - similar facts again, left conventional housing and went back on the road, Co Co tried to treat it as a planning contravention, court said no and ordered the provision of a halting site as an ancillary order to the one striking down the planning decision.

I could be ALL wrong, but that was my general take on that one.

smjsmj

Hogzy wrote: »

^^^
I would definitely agree with this.

I think the examiner was trying to throw off students with the By-Law. Just because there is a by law in the question does not mean it touches on the Non Delegation Doctrine. There wasnt even a parent act in the question so i dont know why delegation would be an issue.

I could be wrong though. I have failed this paper numerous times so im not in a position to call it really. Well see how right i was in November i suppose.

FYI - I talked about Property/Livelihood and how there may have been an unjust attack on his property/livelihood. I went into a spiel about Tuohy and Heaney Proportionality and whether the restriction was arbitrary and unfair and whether it restricted Barry's rights as little as possible. I also talked about how property and advertising can be restricted in the common good and talked about Murphy v IRTC and Colgan v IRTC
I brought in Quinn Supermarkets and said that the rights of Barry could be harmonised with the rights of his neighbour and the sign could be turned off at night, and this was evidence that what ever the achievement of the law was, it could be achieved by a lesser means (depending on the states justification)

Who Knows?

hogzy, i went down the exact same route as you, although i didnt mention quinns, thru in about 5 lines on the right to non verbal communication too but i think that was completly off the issue.

With the william question i didnt mention equality at all, i primarily answered that question on non justicability of the courts and the right to bodily integrity

greg question i dont think i got all the issues, i discussed presumption of innocence, silence, right to legal advisors.

Done the essay on privacy which was straightforward enough
also the essay on the right to refuse medical treatment.

fingers crossed i get enough to pass me, first time sitting constitutional and found it really hard to study for you really cant go by pass papers, you just never know what your going to get.