FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

lougem

layzee wrote: »

That discussion about the trespass torts was referring to question 7, about ellen and phillip, not the medical student question!

Yeh sorry I shoulda specified I was answering her Q 2 query.

paulanthony

2ndtimer wrote: »

Finally, if all taxes collected benefit solely a national product; eg tax on apples benefiting the Irish apple board this will be breach of art 30 TFEU (25 EC).

If otherwise..eg 40% of revenue goes to Irish apple board this will fall under art 110 TFEU (90 EC) and will no doubt lead to a finding if discrimainatory taxation.

Is there a case saying this?

A question a few sittings ago about a levy of 1% on all greyhounds sold which are raised in Ireland, whether sold domestically or for export.

Levy used (I think) 40% for improving Irish greyhound stadiums and 60% for promoting the marketing of Irish greyhounds abroad, particularly in the UK. (The 40% and 60% may be the other way around)

Obviously it looks like a A110 internal tax but could be a customs duty on exports. Presumed there was some significance to the use of the levy but wasn't sure what. Anyone know the answer?

Cheers

P

Aimee34

paulanthony wrote: »

Is there a case saying this?

A question a few sittings ago about a levy of 1% on all greyhounds sold which are raised in Ireland, whether sold domestically or for export.

Levy used (I think) 40% for improving Irish greyhound stadiums and 60% for promoting the marketing of Irish greyhounds abroad, particularly in the UK. (The 40% and 60% may be the other way around)

Obviously it looks like a A110 internal tax but could be a customs duty on exports. Presumed there was some significance to the use of the levy but wasn't sure what. Anyone know the answer?

Cheers

P

Levy imposed on all domestic greyhounds regardless of whether they are sold domestically or exported.
Therefore under Denkavit, the 1% levy could be a charge having an equilivant effect to a customs duty on exports.

However, you are given what the levy is to be used for.
60% for greyhound facilities in Ireland.
40% for the promotion of greyhounds abroad.

Scharbatke + Visserijbehrijf productsncap vis
1. If revenue resulting from an apparantly non-discriminatory tax solely benefits national products, so that the advantage accrued wholly offsets the charge, it will be a Charge having equivilant effect to a customs duty.

2. If the advantages accrued from the revenue from the charge only partially offset the charge, then it will be considered a discriminatory internal tax and will fall under Art. 110 TFEU.

In this case, 60% of the money is to go directly back into Irish greyhounds = advantages partially offset the charge = Art. 110 TFEU.

Is it discriminatory? Probably, the national good is doing better than the exported good (60% versus 40%)

Hope that helps! Greyhounds, mopeds towing trailers....cant wait to see what he comes up with next!

Amre17

what came up in todays equity exam?

was it a tough one? Just curious...

jgjkl

Hi, I am selling Griffith Criminal law 2009/10 manual. Excellent quality. 50e including postage. PM if interested.

Amre17

I_hate_FE1s wrote: »

What are the core areas of Criminal Law? Startin to panic.....:o

Im not advising it but i passed criminal without having done murder/manslaughter, actus reus, mens rea and definition/classification of a crime so it is possible to pass leaving out parts.. so dont panic just yet.. having left out such big parts i did the rest of the course quite well though..

know the offences - property, sexual, non fatal murder/manslaughter, public order and offences against justice, the defences, and look over the practice and procedure part of the course too, theres usually a good chance of at least one Q on that..

TommyGavin

Equity consisted of

Q1 - Joint accounts
Q2 - Quia Timet Injunction
Q3 - Constructive Trusts
Q4 - Purpose Trusts
Q5 - Trusteeship - Duty to Invest
Q6 - Recission
Q7 - Rectification/Maximx/Strong v Bird (2 do 3)
Q8 - Secret trusts

May have thrown some people, was no charitable trusts/cy-pres. Quia Timet may have led some people to believe that it was specific performance or even proprietary estoppel.

Overall I thought It was a fair enough paper.

randomchild

Yeah I was not too sure about question 2 so wrote most of it about injunctions and a chunk about SP. Was SP not relevant as the main cause of action though?

TommyGavin

You could have mentioned SP as a potential alternative if your client would have had the time to bring such an action but in this instance the holiday is next week and the examiner I believe was trying to relay the urgency of the matter to us by saying 'Easter was iminent' hence the requirement to rush to court with an injunction.

I'd say many people wrote an answer on SP but due to the nature of the wording of the question and the ambiguity as to the threat of a breach of your clients rights Quia Timet was the crux of the question.

I'd say some people may have even confused it with proprietary estoppel also as there was an assurance and a reliance but they would have fallen on the detriment requirement as no detriment has occurred as yet.

glee123

Hi Brian,

Just wondering if you get a spare minute today could you PLEASE explain the whole issue surrounding Williams v. Roffey Brothers for me? I am in a total boggle as to its relevance?

randomchild

TommyGavin wrote: »

You could have mentioned SP as a potential alternative if your client would have had the time to bring such an action but in this instance the holiday is next week and the examiner I believe was trying to relay the urgency of the matter to us by saying 'Easter was iminent' hence the requirement to rush to court with an injunction.

I'd say many people wrote an answer on SP but due to the nature of the wording of the question and the ambiguity as to the threat of a breach of your clients rights Quia Timet was the crux of the question.

I'd say some people may have even confused it with proprietary estoppel also as there was an assurance and a reliance but they would have fallen on the detriment requirement as no detriment has occurred as yet.

Yeah it was really oddly structured, did not even consider the Easter part of the question, really odd way of expressing that the holiday was imminent!

Jev/N

glee123 wrote: »

Hi Brian,

Just wondering if you get a spare minute today could you PLEASE explain the whole issue surrounding Williams v. Roffey Brothers for me? I am in a total boggle as to its relevance?

It's a bit of an anomaly in the law IIRC - that performance of an existing contractual duty CANNOT constitute good consideration.

However, in this case, the court held that it could constitute good consideration where it results in a practical benefit to the promisor (in this instance, having the contract being performed on time as there were penalties if this was not done)

JCJCJC

glee123 wrote: »

Hi Brian,

Just wondering if you get a spare minute today could you PLEASE explain the whole issue surrounding Williams v. Roffey Brothers for me? I am in a total boggle as to its relevance?

Google it pending Brian's reply, there's loads on it, including this:
http://instruct.uwo.ca/law/410-003/williamsvroffey.html

JC

littlemac1980

TommyGavin wrote: »

Equity consisted of

Q1 - Joint accounts
Q2 - Quia Timet Injunction
Q3 - Constructive Trusts
Q4 - Purpose Trusts
Q5 - Trusteeship - Duty to Invest
Q6 - Recission
Q7 - Rectification/Maximx/Strong v Bird (2 do 3)
Q8 - Secret trusts

May have thrown some people, was no charitable trusts/cy-pres. Quia Timet may have led some people to believe that it was specific performance or even proprietary estoppel.

Overall I thought It was a fair enough paper.

Did Equity last Oct and passed - was fairly well prepared on a good number of topics... but not all as usual... would have had difficulty with that choice of questions... much tougher than Oct if you ask me.

littlemac1980

Hogzy wrote: »

Guys i know the letter says you can only hand in your legislative sources between 9 and 12 but does anyone know if these are strictly adhered to in Cork, Have a lot of skimming over to do for Constitutional tomorrow and would like to hand my Constitution and EU Legislation in as early as possible!! Has anyone handed there stuff in earlier than 9?

Yeah I handed in CA1963 and CA1990 in Cork on friday last at 8.45 or so... and had them on my desk at 9.30 for exam... for all the good it did haha.

brian__foley

glee123 wrote: »

Hi Brian,

Just wondering if you get a spare minute today could you PLEASE explain the whole issue surrounding Williams v. Roffey Brothers for me? I am in a total boggle as to its relevance?

What issue now - i.e. the one which occured a few times on the exam - how it relates to consideration / estoppel etc?

stewbacca

Hey Brian

If one were to take a serious knife to Contract on account of one being totally screwed for Wed's exam, any advice on what bits could possibly be cut? Thanks

brian__foley

stewbacca wrote: »

Hey Brian

If one were to take a serious knife to Contract on account of one being totally screwed for Wed's exam, any advice on what bits could possibly be cut? Thanks

All I'll say is that if the exam was on tommorrow, and I had to start work now, I would probably be guided by how for the past six exams or so, you've probably (I'm not warranting this) had five questions from formation (including consideration and intention), estoppel (prom and prop), mistake, frustration, illegality, damages / remedies and privity (and the related third party damages issue Jackson etc), terms of a contract and misrepresentation.

You wouldn't have had much choice, and its no guarantee for the future but on my reading you'd have (assuming you knew it well) got through the past six or so exams with that.

Amre17

Hi all..

Does anyone know of any predictions floating around for the property exam on friday? Or would anyone like to share their own hopeful ones..

glee123

Hi Brian,

Ya the issue re its relevance to consideration/estoppel!!! I'm beginning to hate contract law

Jev/N

glee123 wrote: »

Hi Brian,

Ya the issue re its relevance to consideration/estoppel!!! I'm beginning to hate contract law

Did you see my response?

Plus JC is right, there is loads of info on google - all relevant

glee123

thanks!

stewbacca

Thanks for that Brian! What are the chances of privity come up as 5 questions...that would make my fe1 life! Contract is soul destroying as study goes I have to say!

lougem

brian__foley wrote: »

See here from cearta.ie around the time.

Bottom line is that public interest defence exists in Ireland, probably modelled loosely on Reynolds but without the rigidity that Reynolds came to attract in the UK. The article explains all.

Would the new defamation act be worth mentioning? It creates a new defence of 'Public Interest'.

I'm going through the EU past papers here. Thought I had Directive 2004/38/EC pretty well covered and was looking to take a question on it in the exam. Turns out, I was way off, what are all these questions about education maintenance grants about? Something about levels of integration into the Member State to be able to get the same privileges as those there?

If anyone's up to speed on this one I'd really appreciate a list of relevant cases or something so I can get it together

Good luck everyone

brian__foley

glee123 wrote: »

Hi Brian,

Ya the issue re its relevance to consideration/estoppel!!! I'm beginning to hate contract law

Ok, if you take in steps

(a) promissory estoppel is all about promises unsupported by consideration have legal "force" in a sense - i.e. you can hold such a promise over someone by way of defence in some cases
(b) this is only permissible as a "shield". Why? Because any other conclusion would end up basically saying consideration isn't important - Coombe.
(c) if, logically, promissory estoppel is restricted to defensive operation because we value consideration, then if we stopped valuing consideration, we may have to revisit Coombe
(d) query then, whether Williams either
(i) amounts to a new view that we don't care about consideration
(ii) is simply an example of the law finding consideration where perhaps it would not have done previously.

(e) if you conclude (i) is correct, then Williams would support the wider view that Coombe isn't important anymore. If you conclude (ii) is correct, it wouldn't!

Jicked

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going through the EU past papers here. Thought I had Directive 2004/38/EC pretty well covered and was looking to take a question on it in the exam. Turns out, I was way off, what are all these questions about education maintenance grants about? Something about levels of integration into the Member State to be able to get the same privileges as those there?

If anyone's up to speed on this one I'd really appreciate a list of relevant cases or something so I can get it together

Good luck everyone

I was in the same position myself. Apparently a case called Forster is what the most recent authority, I'm going to try find it tomorrow, right now is some desperately needed sleep and a few hours off from EU!

Jicked

Jicked wrote: »

I was in the same position myself. Apparently a case called Forster is what the most recent authority, I'm going to try find it tomorrow, right now is some desperately needed sleep and a few hours off from EU!

Jeez, thanks for that. I found a good summary here with that information: http://www.cjel.net/online/15_2-mataija/

Christor

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going through the EU past papers here. Thought I had Directive 2004/38/EC pretty well covered and was looking to take a question on it in the exam. Turns out, I was way off, what are all these questions about education maintenance grants about? Something about levels of integration into the Member State to be able to get the same privileges as those there?

If anyone's up to speed on this one I'd really appreciate a list of relevant cases or something so I can get it together

Good luck everyone

Case C-158/07 - Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep
1. A student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State in order to obtain a maintenance grant.
2. A student who is a national of a Member State and travels to another Member State to study there can rely on the first paragraph of Article 12 EC in order to obtain a maintenance grant where he or she has resided for a certain duration in the host Member State. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC does not preclude the application to nationals of other Member States of a requirement of five years’ prior residence.
3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, does not preclude the application of a residence requirement which makes the right of students from other Member States to a maintenance grant subject to the completion of periods of residence which occurred prior to the introduction of that requirement.

coco13

Starting to freak out now.. Any advice re Property anyone??
Whats the least one can cover in the hope/luck of getting five questions.. Just feel like giving up now..Dunno where to start after Succession! Anyone???