FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

jenspondolik

amyeee wrote: »

I reckon the March 14 question about the brick wall just requires a discussion of the elements of negligence e.g. duty of care, breach of the standard of care, causation. The stove and dolphin questions are headwreckers though, would love some clarity on these.

And my grid says products liability for the stove seriously where to start. I'm not going near anymore exam papers

XxMCRxBabyxX

jenspondolik wrote: »

I find the less I know the better I do cos I'm calmer in exam on account of the hopelessness

I think that describes me perfectly!

FE1 student

S12b wrote: »

1) essay on proportionality

2) that sovereignty essay on Pringle and Crotty

3) the article 45 essay

4) Fleming v Ireland, Maher v Minister for Agri, Murphy v AG, TD v Min for Education

5) to be honest, I'm still not 100% sure....seems to be an essay on deference

6) problem q on referendum law

7) problem q on right to fair procedure

8) really not sure....can anyone clarify....something to do with being charged under legislation that has been abolished and the governments response

q8 according to his report was retrospectivity and a discussion on blasphemy. Dealing with grealis v dpp and dpp v judge Devins

missindigo123

jenspondolik wrote: »

Lol I'm having a cup of tea now. Then getting stuck into negligence I don't know where to start three topics read only. I find the less I know the better I do cos I'm calmer in exam on account of the hopelessness

Im using your theory to go enjoy a cuppa ha!
Good luck tomorrow too!

sunshine and showers

jenspondolik wrote: »

And my grid says products liability for the stove seriously where to start. I'm not going near anymore exam papers

The stove question and brick wall question are both general negligence questions, no?

For both you talk about duty of care; breach of duty and appropriate standard of care; causation and remoteness of damages.

They're really broad in allowing you to answer the question pretty much however you want talking about the principles of negligence!

Daryl Strawberry

S12b wrote: »

1) essay on proportionality

2) that sovereignty essay on Pringle and Crotty

3) the article 45 essay

4) Fleming v Ireland, Maher v Minister for Agri, Murphy v AG, TD v Min for Education

5) to be honest, I'm still not 100% sure....seems to be an essay on deference

6) problem q on referendum law

7) problem q on right to fair procedure

8) really not sure....can anyone clarify....something to do with being charged under legislation that has been abolished and the governments response

Yet again, what a horrible paper that was..

missindigo123

amyeee wrote: »

I reckon the March 14 question about the brick wall just requires a discussion of the elements of negligence e.g. duty of care, breach of the standard of care, causation. The stove and dolphin questions are headwreckers though, would love some clarity on these.

I think the dolphin case is public authority liability - you are asked to advise the council as to whether they owe any liability..

So just general negligence principles:
Suing them because the platform wasn't organised very well - they owed a DOC - breached it, yes they noticed

1. Duty of care - yes, PA owes a DOC here because there is no public policy reasons not to recognise the DOC in this situation - PA are acting in relation to their everyday operational powers and not their discretionary decision making / statute powers (planning permission etc - public policy concerns and SOP prevent court getting involved etc - Beatty V Rent Tribunal) which make it harder to establish a DOC.

2. Standard of care owed - noticed the dolphin getting worse. So consider, probability, gravity, cost and social utility

3. Causation - they enticed the dolphin to come and stay, constructed the platform, even when animal became agitated, they didnt take any measures to increase safety. Reasonably foreseeable that damage would result here.

4. Damage - hand bitten

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Any tips for Contract?

jenspondolik

sunshine and showers wrote: »

The stove question and brick wall question are both general negligence questions, no?

For both you talk about duty of care; breach of duty and appropriate standard of care; causation and remoteness of damages.

They're really broad in allowing you to answer the question pretty much however you want talking about the principles of negligence!

Yea I just did negligence there and went back to look at stove question and it was easily negligence with remoteness and small bit of economic loss. I have sample answer that are all wrong from a prep course just dumped them now.

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Hey could anyone tell me is it far to walk from the ibis to the redcow, I'm not from dublin and don't want to chance driving incase I take a wrong turn or get caught in traffic!

May92

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Hey could anyone tell me is it far to walk from the ibis to the redcow, I'm not from dublin and don't want to chance driving incase I take a wrong turn or get caught in traffic!

Around 15-20 minutes

Arcturus2112

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Hey could anyone tell me is it far to walk from the ibis to the redcow, I'm not from dublin and don't want to chance driving incase I take a wrong turn or get caught in traffic!

Allow 20mins I would say. It's not that far really, just a little awkward in that you are crossing a couple of bridges.

Also, forecast says rain for the morning, so I would suggest bringing an umbrella. Being soaked wet in the exam hall would be a particularly bad buzz..

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Allow 20mins I would say. It's not that far really, just a little awkward in that you are crossing a couple of bridges.

Also, forecast says rain for the morning, so I would suggest bringing an umbrella. Being soaked wet in the exam hall would be a particularly bad buzz..

Cheers for that! Hopefully my phone will take me right there! I have no umbrella, ahhhh!

jenspondolik

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Cheers for that! Hopefully my phone will take me right there! I have no umbrella, ahhhh!

You can just follow the sheep I'll be one of them.

Troels Hartmann

Daryl Strawberry wrote: »

Yet again, what a horrible paper that was..

And yet his report said the standard was good! The mind boggles as to how anyone but the very strongest and best-prepared of us could have passed that God-awful paper......

amyeee

missindigo123 wrote: »

I think the dolphin case is public authority liability - you are asked to advise the council as to whether they owe any liability..

So just general negligence principles:
Suing them because the platform wasn't organised very well - they owed a DOC - breached it, yes they noticed

1. Duty of care - yes, PA owes a DOC here because there is no public policy reasons not to recognise the DOC in this situation - PA are acting in relation to their everyday operational powers and not their discretionary decision making / statute powers (planning permission etc - public policy concerns and SOP prevent court getting involved etc - Beatty V Rent Tribunal) which make it harder to establish a DOC.

2. Standard of care owed - noticed the dolphin getting worse. So consider, probability, gravity, cost and social utility

3. Causation - they enticed the dolphin to come and stay, constructed the platform, even when animal became agitated, they didnt take any measures to increase safety. Reasonably foreseeable that damage would result here.

4. Damage - hand bitten

Yeah, cheers, once I actually sat down to do this it appeared handy enough. I just hope I spot the general negligence question tomorrow (if there is one...)

Another thing - anyone know if solicitors/barristers negligence comes up often? So tempted to stick to just medical...

missindigo123

amyeee wrote: »

Yeah, cheers, once I actually sat down to do this it appeared handy enough. I just hope I spot the general negligence question tomorrow (if there is one...)

Another thing - anyone know if solicitors/barristers negligence comes up often? So tempted to stick to just medical...

I don't have professional negligence done other than a sketch knowledge but I'm pretty sure that it's solicitors and barristers never really come up!! It's nearly always medical! I think!!

amyeee

missindigo123 wrote: »

I don't have professional negligence done other than a sketch knowledge but I'm pretty sure that it's solicitors and barristers never really come up!! It's nearly always medical! I think!!

Phew, thank you!!

sunshine and showers

Could anyone give me a rundown of an answer to q.2 April 2014? The one with the tree. Is it infliction of emotional distress or trespass?

genuinely55

mirm wrote: »

Q6 I did fraudulent/reckless trading wit a bit of failure to keep proper books and records and mentioned the loan to the director, I never mentioned restriction! Now I don't feel so positive

Could anyone that did q6 on Company today say how they answered? Confused me but had to answer it! Thanks

amyeee

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Could anyone give me a rundown of an answer to q.2 April 2014? The one with the tree. Is it infliction of emotional distress or trespass?

According to the reports it's about abatement of nuisance. The neighbour is entitled to abate a nuisance where it occurs, there's not a lot in the manual about this (like three paragraphs) but the main case is Lemmon v Webb (an injured party cut roots of a tree as soon as they projected into his property). I guess the rest of your answer is a discussion on principles of nuisance generally.

Daryl Strawberry

jenspondolik wrote: »

You can just follow the sheep I'll be one of them.

That awkward walk across the bridges from the Luas with everyone walking in Indian file, 6/7 paces apart :L

fe1fun

So I'm confused, could anyone please let me know what exactly Pringle changed as per Constitutional Law?

sunshine and showers

Lol, Tort. Nope. Liability for fire, seriously?

Daryl Strawberry

Just lost my bag with my copy of the constitution in it

Anyone know anywhere that sells them? everywhere I've tried has no copies because of the upcoming referendum

FE1 EXAMS 2013

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Lol, Tort. Nope. Liability for fire, seriously?

What a friggin joke! I've seriously lost heart after that exam! Liability for fire, wtf???? Can something say what the 8 topics were I dunno even know if I answered half of them on the correct topic, seriously considering of just packing it in and forgetting constitutional

missindigo123

Daryl Strawberry wrote: »

Just lost my bag with my copy of the constitution in it

Anyone know anywhere that sells them? everywhere I've tried has no copies because of the upcoming referendum

I got one in liffey valley easons!

missindigo123

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

What a friggin joke! I've seriously lost heart after that exam! Liability for fire, wtf???? Can something say what the 8 topics were I dunno even know if I answered half of them on the correct topic, seriously considering of just packing it in and forgetting constitutional

Horrible ugh!!! I think I got a question on negligence misstatement causation and no idea about the others!

sunshine and showers

missindigo123 wrote: »

Horrible ugh!!! I think I got a question on negligence misstatement causation and no idea about the others!

I didn't even cop that one! Saw solicitor and bad advice and didn't even think past professional negligence, which I didn't know. I DID know negligent misstatement! :eyeroll:

Might have bumped me up a bit from one ok and four crap answers. Passing all eight at once ain't happening anyway ! :P

XxMCRxBabyxX

Hello to the blonde girl who was just on this thread beside me on the luas! :-)

I just about got through that. I found it OK though with some odd questions!