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

lawbear

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Plane to anywhere would be ideal! You can't beat the "what's meant to be won't pass you by" quote when explaining the difficulty of these horrendous exams!
Also the fact my law degree doesn't push me into blackhall irritates the Sh*t out of me right now : (

I say we protest tomorrow, march outside red cow, say these exams restrict our right to earn a livelihood and considering we have law degrees already the exams are arbitrary, unfair and based on irrational considerations haha… going a tad mad here

Rebelgirl87

lawbear wrote: »

I say we protest tomorrow, march outside red cow, say these exams restrict our right to earn a livelihood and considering we have law degrees already the exams are arbitrary, unfair and based on irrational considerations haha… going a tad mad here

Forget the study get the banners ready!!! Haha

Kcookies2015

Rebelgirl87 wrote: »

Forget the study get the banners ready!!! Haha

I'll start making the sandwiches and get the flasks of tea : )

Rebelgirl87

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

I'll start making the sandwiches and get the flasks of tea : )

Haha l like your thinking!

fe1chancer

It's hard to beat the boards night before exam insanity! Makes me feel that bit better about these bulls**t exams!!

legalease2172

ugh... At this stage my constitutional exam booklet will feature a eulogy to Justice Hardiman to fill up space

Rebelgirl87

legalease2172 wrote: »

ugh... At this stage my constitutional exam booklet will feature a eulogy to Justice Hardiman to fill up space

Wouldn't that be a nice question to get! Write a eulogy to Justice Hardiman!

Kcookies2015

Think I need a new method of learning! I have to rewrite my notes to get them to stay in my head any bit but on that note I've successfully emptied 5 pens since last Tuesday! That's an achievement in itself haha

Fe1r

lawbear wrote: »

I say we protest tomorrow, march outside red cow, say these exams restrict our right to earn a livelihood and considering we have law degrees already the exams are arbitrary, unfair and based on irrational considerations haha… going a tad mad here

Deadly serious I plan on writing to the law society if and when I ever pass these damn things....by all means if you don't have a law degree they should be compulsory but if you do there should be exemptions like they have in accounting.

We wouldn't have law degrees if we hadn't passed the modules in college. So much for double jeopardy!

FEWan2015

Fe1r wrote: »

Deadly serious I plan on writing to the law society if and when I ever pass these damn things....by all means if you don't have a law degree they should be compulsory but if you do there should be exemptions like they have in accounting.

We wouldn't have law degrees if we hadn't passed the modules in college. So much for double jeopardy!

I completely agree! We should start a petition or something, we could get plenty of people behind it considering that anyone who doesn't do law thinks it's ridiculous too

Yohnathan

kiwi33 wrote: »

i took the quote directly from the book! im beginning to think it means that a person can discriminate as in someone doesn't have to employ say a protestant but the state couldnt say that protestants cant be employed regarding art 44. that's what im sticking too. ps... i have nothing against protestants its just the first thing that came in my head! maybe its because im eating an orange

This comment has made my very boring Fe1 filled day!!

OfficeGirl2015

Having driven myself to the brink of insanity with Equity, resulting in me making a total balls of it, I have decided to completely limit the EU topics I will be covering over the next few days to: -
1. Supremacy
2. Direct Effect
3. Four Freedoms
4. Commission
5. State Liability
6. Competition Law
7. EU Citizenship
8. Art 267
Is there anything that is so obviously definite that I am missing out? I will be replacing one of the above if there is

HappySlappy123

OfficeGirl2015 wrote: »

Having driven myself to the brink of insanity with Equity, resulting in me making a total balls of it, I have decided to completely limit the EU topics I will be covering over the next few days to: -
1. Supremacy
2. Direct Effect
3. Four Freedoms
4. Commission
5. State Liability
6. Competition Law
7. EU Citizenship
8. Art 267
Is there anything that is so obviously definite that I am missing out? I will be replacing one of the above if there is

Recall seeing fundamental rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights being tipped a couple of weeks ago. Competition law must be an absolute banker also after being left out in October

lawgal

Does anyone have a short synopsis of the leopardstown v templeville decision under breach in contract law? Would be very grateful thanks

HappySlappy123

For case notes question on EU I'm looking at:

Microsoft v Commission (on last year but very popular)
Pringle v Ireland (see Microsoft reasoning)
Airtours v Commission (not on in October, popular)
Van Gend En Loos (As above)
Kobler (As above)
Consten v Grundig (potential overload of competition to make up for it being absent in October)
Commission v UK (Excise duties on wine - topical)

After that we'll be winging them from general notes from topics

ChloeElla

Could I possibly get the EU tips too? I did the 3 in a row last week so now I think I completely underestimated EU! In college we just did the 4 freedoms for substantive law - trying to plough through everything else! Email is chloepower [@] live.com

OfficeGirl2015

ChloeElla wrote: »

Could I possibly get the EU tips too? I did the 3 in a row last week so now I think I completely underestimated EU! In college we just did the 4 freedoms for substantive law - trying to plough through everything else! Email is chloepower [@] live.com

sent

EthanSS

OfficeGirl, would you mind sending them to me as well. My e-mail is [email]roryhealy22{at}gmail.com[/email]. Thanks.

EthanSS

Could somebody explain revocation of offers to me. I'm getting confused.

So, an offer can be revoked anytime until it is accepted. However, for revocation to be effective it must be communicated to the person to whom the offer was originally made. I assume that's just for bilateral contract. How would you revoke a unilateral offer as they are open to the world at large.

Thanks in advance.

Itchy Lot

EthanSS wrote: »

Could somebody explain revocation of offers to me. I'm getting confused.

So, an offer can be revoked anytime until it is accepted. However, for revocation to be effective it must be communicated to the person to whom the offer was originally made. I assume that's just for bilateral contract. How would you revoke a unilateral offer as they are open to the world at large.

Thanks in advance.

I think it needs to be revoked in a similar manner to which the offer was originally communicated - so another newspaper advertisement if it was Carlill Smokeball for example.

hullaballoo

Please don't post fully parsed email addresses in public. You're signing yourself up for purple pill ads for life by doing so.

Kcookies2015

Well that paper was a complete balls...... Sleep was more important clearly

EthanSS

So, if I offered to sell you my car for 500 and then revoked that offer but you didn't (for whatever reason) get my revocation and you accepted - would that mean there's an enforceable contract? Thanks.

Itchy Lot

EthanSS wrote: »

So, if I offered to sell you my car for 500 and then revoked that offer but you didn't (for whatever reason) get my revocation and you accepted - would that mean there's an enforceable contract? Thanks.

Yes, to revoke your offer you would need to communicate it to me. So unless it was implicitly revoked (I heard from a third party you had sold it to someone else - Dickinson v Dodds) then I can still accept.

EthanSS

My final stupid Q of the day. I understand the distinction of an offer v Invitation to Treat. However, I am just wondering what the actual significance of the distinction is. Thanks.

Itchy Lot

EthanSS wrote: »

My final stupid Q of the day. I understand the distinction of an offer v Invitation to Treat. However, I am just wondering what the actual significance of the distinction is. Thanks.

An invitation for treat is something which is asking for offers, so you cannot accept an invitation to treat and form a binding contract. You can only make an offer, which the inviter may or may not accept.

dashdoll

Can anyone please post what came up in each of the Constitutional problem questions today as I genuinely have no idea what I just wrote about in those problem questions. Traumatised

sophiehatter

dashdoll wrote: »

Can anyone please post what came up in each of the Constitutional problem questions today as I genuinely have no idea what I just wrote about in those problem questions. Traumatised

So it wasn't just me and my serious lack of sleep then? It was bad right??

Fe1r

Opened the constitutional paper and spent 15 minutes just trying to figure out what was going on. Definite fail

Dublad2012

Lads constitutional was ****ing dreadful yeah?

For the sake of self torture, what was the question on sugar about? I chanced it but God knows what I was on about.