FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

JCJCJC

NickDrake wrote: »

I put a line in on professional negligence but as it was a claim for injuries, I only put in a line. Was he expecting both so or mainly trespass. Talk about trying to catch people out. You couldn't possibly write about trespass and negligence

You could read it both ways, but the bottom line is 'advise Ellen as to her potential liability in tort law' so the neg mis question is still open, even though the dude has only claimed for injuries. Can't do any harm to mention it but there was definitely not enough back-up info to make a big thing of it.

JC

Ruby83

mandz wrote: »

No I didn't. All my case law went out of my head and I just said that given the events that had occured it was reasonably foreseeable that she would hit him with her bag. The end of my answer was kinda rushed as I had still two questions to do and it was pushing 11.15. All my prob questions are awful but hoping I'm remembering bad bits. Did you do the occupiers liability question? I stupidly started with this I think had it not been my first question I would have answered it better. I didn't think the old guy could be held liable as he had taken reasonable action to try and alleviate the ice problem as best he could and that William had been a trespasser on his property.

It seems like you did all of the same questions as me. I also said he had a weak case for the occupiers liability question. I actually thought that although the question had lots of facts, it didn't give much room to actually go into much detail on the act itself and my case law was very sparse.
For the vicarious liability question, mine was all over the place. The critically discuss part just consisted really of me writing everything I knew about vicarious liability with a small paragraph attempt at trying to be a bit more critical. The second half of my question was attrocious and I just discussed the sexual abuse cases and why it may not be reasonable to impose liability in those situations on the employer.
I also did the economic loss question. Surprised myself by picking this one to be honest but I was running out of time and I felt this was probably going to be shorter than any of the remaining prob questions (had already done the causation/remoteness essay). There was a good bit of room in this one I felt and I stuck in about negligent misstatement and builders liability as regards pure economic loss. I had a small paragrpah on relational loss.
Hopefully this will be the worst paper. Only two to go! Exhausted already!

ps - did anyone do the employers liability question? I felt she had a weak case but would appreciate other input! It was my last question so I kinda rushed it!

Chilliflake

I don't know about anybody else, but I thought Tort was a horrendous paper. I could hardly work out what exactly the topics were in half of the questions. Did 5 atrocious questions and will no doubt be back in the saddle in Sept again. Did the trespass/false imprisonment/assault one but didn't mention professional negligence, did the vicarious liability and pure economic loss essays (both terrible), the car one - couldn't make out if it was manufacturer's liability in tort or product liability given the question said "advise blah de blah about his liability in tort under statute", so made a mishmash of both and then scraped through a very bad causation/novus actus answer for the car crash. Was blushing with embarrassment at some of the stuff I was writing. I went totally brain dead and could hardly remember the basic principles of all the topics, never mind case law! I could scream!

mandz

Yeah I did that question, it was my fifth question. I think amongst my jibber jabber I said Head Ltd was obliged to provide a safe place of work, equipment and system of work - threw everything in!! I said that they were aware of the danger and that what had happened had showed that the self locking door system was not a safe system of work. Threw in the Rogers v Bus Atha Cliaith case where the judge found in favour of the defendent as they had been in talks with the employees to find a suitable protection for drivers however a cctv and the self locking door could not be suitable protection or something along those lines. Probably wrong though!! At first I thought it was about stress (Hatton etc.) then copped thankfully as I started to write my answer.

Darn it I forgot the employers case about the teacher... I generally wrote about employees and the various tests implemented by the Court. My critcism isn't great. Hoping my economic loss question is as good as I think it is. That answer had the most case law in it.

mandz

Chilliflake wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else, but I thought Tort was a horrendous paper. I could hardly work out what exactly the topics were in half of the questions. Did 5 atrocious questions and will no doubt be back in the saddle in Sept again. Did the trespass/false imprisonment/assault one but didn't mention professional negligence, did the vicarious liability and pure economic loss essays (both terrible), the car one - couldn't make out if it was manufacturer's liability in tort or product liability given the question said "advise blah de blah about his liability in tort under statute", so made a mishmash of both and then scraped through a very bad causation/novus actus answer for the car crash. Was blushing with embarrasment at some of the stuff I was writing. I went totally brain dead and could hardly remember the basic principles of all the topics, never mind case law! I could scream!

I suspect I'll be back there with you hun!! I did the economic loss and vicarious liability essays, teh occupiers question, tresspass to person and employers. If I scrape a 50 I'll be over the moon - mainly cause that'll be the end of my trips to the RDS though!! Myself and girl I went up with just looked at each other, words could not express how we felt!!

Chilliflake

mandz wrote: »

I suspect I'll be back there with you hun!! I did the economic loss and vicarious liability essays, teh occupiers question, tresspass to person and employers. If I scrape a 50 I'll be over the moon - mainly cause that'll be the end of my trips to the RDS though!! Myself and girl I went up with just looked at each other, words could not express how we felt!!

OMG you lucky thing!! I wouldn't mind but I passed tort last Oct (53%), contract and failed criminal (only did three and never studied for a fourth so just signed in for company) so have to repeat them all again this time round and now I'm going to fail tort!! Doing 5 this time to give me more back up than last time.. sigh. It's a long auld journey isn't it?

JCJCJC

Ruby83 wrote: »

ps - did anyone do the employers liability question? I felt she had a weak case but would appreciate other input! It was my last question so I kinda rushed it!

I did it, thought the same - weak enough case. I discussed the 2005 Health Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act and the statutory duty to provide a safe place and system of work, and competent co-workers. Was the manager a competent person to say what sort of rear door was suitable - might not a keypad entry system have been better etc, a matter for an expert security consultant, manager decided on the door while incensed etc. I attributed some negligence to Jenny for forgetting the key twice, she has a statutory duty to look out for her own safety too. How foreseeable was it that the loiterers would actually beat her up? Did the risk alter when they changed to a head shop? I didn't think of going into written safety statements etc but its not terribly relevant anyway. The manager as agent of Head Ltd was actually on notice of her comcerns, what did he do about it etc.

JC

Ruby83

JCJCJC wrote: »

I did it, thought the same - weak enough case. I discussed the 2005 Health Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act and the statutory duty to provide a safe place and system of work, and competent co-workers. Was the manager a competent person to say what sort of rear door was suitable - might not a keypad entry system have been better etc, a matter for an expert security consultant, manager decided on the door while incensed etc. I attributed some negligence to Jenny for forgetting the key twice, she has a statutory duty to look out for her own safety too. How foreseeable was it that the loiterers would actually beat her up? Did the risk alter when they changed to a head shop? I didn't think of going into written safety statements etc but its not terribly relevant anyway. The manager as agent of Head Ltd was actually on notice of her comcerns, what did he do about it etc.

JC

I discussed safe place, system etc and the act (briefly) but the rest was pretty crappy. Looks like you covered a good bit! Maybe the examiner will give me some credit for it being the last answer. These exams are hard!!

mandz

Chilliflake wrote: »

It's a long auld journey isn't it?

Tell me about it think this is my third year anniversary. Its tough working full time and doing them.

JCJCJC

Ruby83 wrote: »

I discussed safe place, system etc and the act (briefly) but the rest was pretty crappy. Looks like you covered a good bit! Maybe the examiner will give me some credit for it being the last answer. These exams are hard!!

I was thinking of advising her to ring Joe Duffy The only time he won't pee on a head shop is while it's still on fire! :eek:

JC

page1

Was very surprised no question on defamation or damages. The tips of RVF, neg mis and liab for animals way off and i spent some time studying them last night. I did the OL, VL, trespass, economic loss and liability for defective products?? i hope thats what it was about, last question so not great.

JCJCJC

page1 wrote: »

Was very surprised no question on defamation or damages. The tips of RVF, neg mis and liab for animals way off and i spent some time studying them last night. I did the OL, VL, trespass, economic loss and liability for defective products?? i hope thats what it was about, last question so not great.

Agreed, the tipster didn't get as high a score this time, not an animal to be seen and no Rylands either. A bit like Cheltenham this week, no favourites winning. Ah well, I'll be an expert if anyone with a mine ever calls in to say someone dug a quarry over the mine and carelessly flooded it, and there's a few loose camels about as well.
The 4x4 question was definitely about defective products, did the manufacturer do enough with a footnote in the handbook and a sticker, or did the switch marked awd mislead the eejit who bought it. I was inclined to think not enough on balance. Taking the eejit too much into account is subjective to him. Applying a more objective approach, the vehicle could be sold second-hand without the book and with the sticker gone awol. A reasonable person would see the switch and presume it was operative. The product has to be good for ten years per the act and directive so it could reasonably be expected to have more than one owner in that period. In that case it was defective. Most vehicle makers blank off unused switch slots with plastic plugs that have to cost less than switches. The confusion about 2WD, 4WD and AWD was an unnecessary complication I thought, but I like things with nuts and bolts so that's just my opinion.

JC

lucilou

I thought the exam was very unfair...It def didnt cover the syllabus and with the new Defamation Act in force the examiner decided to omit it???thats makes sense...not I got stuck trying to identify some of the issues in the problem not as straightforward as it should be..As for Employers liability and vicarious liability like where did they come from....ah well done and dusted now...

Good luck to all those doin company 2moro.....

UL GRAD

Thought Tort exam was very tough, No Defam, Psychiatric Damage, Nuisance/RVF/Land, Damages.. I would say did 2 alrite questions.. prob q false imp,assault, battery and occupiers liab, the rest were a disaster!Will be back in Sept would say!

McLawin

It was a surprising paper today alright. I read, re-read, and re-read the PQs looking for issues. They seemed a bit thin on issues which was surprising and not much of the blending issues, e.g. animals, damages, limitations. I have to admit, it really threw me for a loop and in spite of the fact that I covered the whole course in my revision, I struggled through it today and didn't feel like I got a chance to make coherent points. Ah well, now to put it out of the head and focus on the next one.

lucilou

Everyone going on bout the assualt false imprisonment but the question asked to advise Ellen in relation to her liabiliy as opposed to Philips liability?? Maybe im wrong....constitutional next...where to start??:(

UL GRAD

lucilou wrote: »

Everyone going on bout the assualt false imprisonment but the question asked to advise Ellen in relation to her liabiliy as opposed to Philips liability?? Maybe im wrong....constitutional next...where to start??:(

No your right, so was battery plus any defences.. I discussed assault and false imp in terms of adding credibility to a possible defence.. escape, actions were proportionate etc.. I dnt know for sure,just what i did!

posgoofy

Really tough paper. I really thought psyc. damage would come up

page1

UL GRAD wrote: »

No your right, so was battery plus any defences.. I discussed assault and false imp in terms of adding credibility to a possible defence.. escape, actions were proportionate etc.. I dnt know for sure,just what i did!

Exactly, the force must be reasonable so it was about giving credibility ie she was afraid for her safety.

Jicked

How did people find Company? thought it was a tough paper myself. Re the Reg 80 question, for that I waffled about Directors being in charge of day-to-day control, power to make large transactions and bring action in the companies name. I then went on about the few occasions where power reverts back to the members. Utter rubbish, but is any of it relevant, I had a sinking feeling half way through that I should have answered with ref to Ostensible Authority and that whole chapter that I left out (naturally!). I'll need that question to have gotten me at least 30/35 and I'm bricking it that it was all irrelevant to the question and worth nothing

32minutes

Jicked wrote: »

How did people find Company? thought it was a tough paper myself. Re the Reg 80 question, for that I waffled about Directors being in charge of day-to-day control, power to make large transactions and bring action in the companies name. I then went on about the few occasions where power reverts back to the members. Utter rubbish, but is any of it relevant, I had a sinking feeling half way through that I should have answered with ref to Ostensible Authority and that whole chapter that I left out (naturally!). I'll need that question to have gotten me at least 30/35 and I'm bricking it that it was all irrelevant to the question and worth nothing

didnt end up doing section 80 question but i think you were right re directors in charge and then resurgence of shareholders powers in certain instances (fraud, de facto directors etc)

zanybornmissfit

God Tort was a nightmare yesterday! No Defamation:mad: No Nuisance:eek: Does anyone know what was tipped to come up in criminal by Griffith college?

Ruby83

zanybornmissfit wrote: »

God Tort was a nightmare yesterday! No Defamation:mad: No Nuisance:eek: Does anyone know what was tipped to come up in criminal by Griffith college?

No tips from Griffith (though maybe there were some given in the one day course). The whole course seems to be relevant really as there is lots of mixing of topics in questions.

Jev/N

What came up in Company today... not doing FE-1's this time but just curious?

legallad

Jev/N wrote: »

What came up in Company today... not doing FE-1's this time but just curious?

art 80
examinership
disposition of assets
ultra vires
registration of charges
meetings
limitations of art 205
not sure of the last one.

Looking at this it appears that it should be easy but the way the questions were phrased and the specific questions were quite trickey. Everyone I spoke to found it difficult.

Jicked

Yeah everyone I heard from seemed to struggle through it. Everything was awkward, like the 205 question on limitations. I ended up doing that and just rattling through my ordinary 205 notes but mentioning how someone was limited in his application at each turn (so in Re Murphs the applicant was limited to situations where more than mere breakdown). There is the Re Via Networks case aswell. Overall my answer was very waffly, but between those cases and mentioning limitations such as winding up/examinership I couldn't see what else he was looking for?

The most annoying part for me was just how well small some of the topics were. Some of the problem questions that i avoided appeared to have a very simple issue which could be described in very quickly without much fuss. Like the problem with part (b) being about a loan to an ex-director...the way the question was phrased seemed to focus on just the narrow issue of saying it was a loan which was prohibited, but a de minimus exception could apply. Not a whole lot to work with for 50% of the marks it seemed! On first glance there seemed to be some more topics like that, such as the one on registration of charges which again i didn't go near.

2ndtimer

Same as, The question re charges seemed overly straight forward, particularly part (a) re the oversight to register the charge. (b) the fixed charge over book debts and priority with the revenue was s174 finance act. Didnt touch director loan one as couldnt remember the new provisions in the 2009 act re loans to directors. Question on charges was done in 2 pages..just hope the rest brings me up.

Sneaky enough paper with the meetings question, examinership not bad if you had prepared.

Anyone find the dispositions one tricky..particularly part (b) the paying into overdraft on the morning of the hearing of the petition? wasnt sure if it was pre-petition or post as didnt say if he done it before or after the petition was granted. I ended up s just giving both scenarios ie s218 and s286... completely forgot the statutory provision that applied to duress and threats that would have applied to part (a) the employee Sean getting the cheque...

Post mortems..no good shall come of them!

Jicked

Certainly not, I didn't even know the 2009 Act affected Directors Loans...whoops

legallad

2ndtimer wrote: »

Same as, The question re charges seemed overly straight forward, particularly part (a) re the oversight to register the charge. (b) the fixed charge over book debts and priority with the revenue was s174 finance act. Didnt touch director loan one as couldnt remember the new provisions in the 2009 act re loans to directors. Question on charges was done in 2 pages..just hope the rest brings me up.

Sneaky enough paper with the meetings question, examinership not bad if you had prepared.

Anyone find the dispositions one tricky..particularly part (b) the paying into overdraft on the morning of the hearing of the petition? wasnt sure if it was pre-petition or post as didnt say if he done it before or after the petition was granted. I ended up s just giving both scenarios ie s218 and s286... completely forgot the statutory provision that applied to duress and threats that would have applied to part (a) the employee Sean getting the cheque...

Post mortems..no good shall come of them!

Well sean could be a creditor as an employee is a prefertial creditor in liquidation so you could apply s 286 or else s139 on fraudulent disposition.

For b) i did the same as you and said it could be both.

2ndtimer

wouldnt worry, its just an ammendment to s31, reducing the burden the prosecution has to prove..makes it more like strict liability.

All I wanted was a sunny little ultra vires/benefits of incorporation/ badly behaved Irish director paper....Was that too much to ask for Tom? Thats it im definitely not taking that training contract with Arthur Cox!

Sorry dreaming out loud there again