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

Milkypops

chops018 wrote: »

That's what I thought aswell, it could be about punitive damages etc. But surely he wouldn't go on about PD the way he did in that question, and it usually specifically asks about those types of damages.

Yeah 5 looked like R v F, if it was Nuisance I would have done it as it was only fresh in my mind from this morning.

r v f is small enough not much case law i was looking for questions that could be answered quick and fast haha!

didn't even think of damages for question 3 !!

Glinda!

sally01 wrote: »

I didn't do the question myself but at first I thought psychiatric but then when he asked what damages I thought it was asking about general damages, punitive etc.

Was hard to know either way!

Was question 5 about the fire on rylands v fletcher??

Lot of questions had no bearing on what he wanted answered, he asked about damages for 3, he asked specifically for legislation re limitation of actions and advise 2 situations in first defamation q! Cant see i passed my answers wer way too wishy washy with hardly any cases coming to me easily. The way the q's wer asked just pure confused me i was constantly worrying ws i answerin ryt q rather than what i was puttin in answer! March here i come FML

chops018

sally01 wrote: »

I didn't do the question myself but at first I thought psychiatric but then when he asked what damages I thought it was asking about general damages, punitive etc.

Was hard to know either way!

Was question 5 about the fire on rylands v fletcher??

Milkypops wrote: »

i hope to faackk it was cos thats what i did it on hahah.....

the trespass question was a bit ****ty aswell wish they gave a problem question....i answered it and tried to give opinion but not necessarily a good one...

negligent misstatement was alright i thought....

standard of care got 3 pages hope its enough i had a few cases not many...

defamation was alright aswell....sickened i didnt pass last time with 45 cos i do think it was an easier paper ohwell onwards and upwards hahah

Did you do punitive damages etc for question 3?

I answered by saying Sally may have a claim in 3 types of damage - PD, General Neg, and Economic Loss.

If I'd have known I'd have done the Standard of Care question, least I might have got 7 or 8 marks for that for discussing the reasonable man test, Nettleship case, then Kelly .v. St. Lawrences Hospital and the 4 factors they take into account - had no cases for those though which is why I thought I'd have a better question 3.

So angry, I hate Tort with a passion. On my last 2 FE1's and I've never had this much trouble with a subject.

Milkypops

jesus iv never even heard of nettleship case/kelly v st. lawrence oops i did the reasonable man and the 4 factors and cases for them so we'll see....

everything was a bit all over the shop for me to be honest and now company tomorrow wish i had something grand like property tomorrow to give my head a bit of a rest and i feel a headache coming on....AARRRGHHHHH

chops018

Milkypops wrote: »

jesus iv never even heard of nettleship case/kelly v st. lawrence oops i did the reasonable man and the 4 factors and cases for them so we'll see....

everything was a bit all over the shop for me to be honest and now company tomorrow wish i had something grand like property tomorrow to give my head a bit of a rest and i feel a headache coming on....AARRRGHHHHH

I know, I'm gonna get stuck into Company around 3 O'Clock.

I've just checked back on every question that has been asked on Damages/Quantum since 2005 and they have all been essay questions. Hmm, I really am hoping he takes sympathy on those of us who may have messed up question 3, as I said, I could have done standard of care and scraped 7 or 8 marks.

Milkypops

chops018 wrote: »

I know, I'm gonna get stuck into Company around 3 O'Clock.

I've just checked back on every question that has been asked on Damages/Quantum since 2005 and they have all been essay questions. Hmm, I really am hoping he takes sympathy on those of us who may have messed up question 3, as I said, I could have done standard of care and scraped 7 or 8 marks.

I think your right with regards to question 3 unless they were being very devious.....all in all i thought it was a very restrictive paper so hopefully they'll mark easier didnt seem to be as many doing it alot of empty seats around...

im freaking about company to be honest.....i think my answers will be very basic and probably not to the point

chops018

Milkypops wrote: »

I think your right with regards to question 3 unless they were being very devious.....all in all i thought it was a very restrictive paper so hopefully they'll mark easier didnt seem to be as many doing it alot of empty seats around...

im freaking about company to be honest.....i think my answers will be very basic and probably not to the point

Here's hoping, because if my question 3 is alright then I am confident. If not then I honestly think I failed.

I'm actually disgusted. I thought it was an ok paper until that, I always write down notes and case names on the actual exam paper over the questions and I had tonnes written down compared to last time, but that question 3 is after fecking me right up.. I even looked at it again after the exam and said hmm that doesn't look right. The only other complaint I have is I was a bit hazy on legislation.

I'm gonna find it hard to get stuck into company after that.

rickety cricket

I hope to god i'm right about this but was question 3 not about compenastory damages and punitive damages. The fact that the question expressly stated medical costs and loss of work as well as the blatant misconduct of the builders, and then the types of damages arising. I talked briefly about psyche injury needing to satisfy the Kelly v Hennessy test but ny focus was on pecuniary and non pecuniary and punitive!

pjhennessy

hope tort went well for everyone today!

Would anyone be able to pass me on a copy of the company exam paper from March 2013?

It would be much appreciated

Milkypops

pjhennessy wrote: »

hope tort went well for everyone today!

Would anyone be able to pass me on a copy of the company exam paper from March 2013?

It would be much appreciated

i have it pm me you email address.....i hope this sitting as easy as the march paper cos if not im gonna be the one crying "silently" in the exam room tomorrow haha

Milkypops

rickety cricket wrote: »

I hope to god i'm right about this but was question 3 not about compenastory damages and punitive damages. The fact that the question expressly stated medical costs and loss of work as well as the blatant misconduct of the builders, and then the types of damages arising. I talked briefly about psyche injury needing to satisfy the Kelly v Hennessy test but ny focus was on pecuniary and non pecuniary and punitive!

now that you bring up the medical bills/ out of work then ya it does look very like a question on damages....thank god i didn't do it now :eek: they prob would have phrased it as advise sally if she has any action in tort and just left the damages out of the last sentence.....

chops018

Milkypops wrote: »

now that you bring up the medical bills/ out of work then ya it does look very like a question on damages....thank god i didn't do it now :eek: they prob would have phrased it as advise sally if she has any action in tort and just left the damages out of the last sentence.....

rickety cricket wrote: »

I hope to god i'm right about this but was question 3 not about compenastory damages and punitive damages. The fact that the question expressly stated medical costs and loss of work as well as the blatant misconduct of the builders, and then the types of damages arising. I talked briefly about psyche injury needing to satisfy the Kelly v Hennessy test but ny focus was on pecuniary and non pecuniary and punitive!

I remember in the equity reports it was said that they asked a question on something but candidates had mistaken it for something else, or else they answered it only on a certain part. He marked it ok on both sides for that sitting, and after that the paper had in brackets what they wanted from candidates, hopefully something similar comes this time or else sympathy marks.. Very devious question indeed.

rickety cricket

Milkypops wrote: »

now that you bring up the medical bills/ out of work then ya it does look very like a question on damages....thank god i didn't do it now :eek: they prob would have phrased it as advise sally if she has any action in tort and just left the damages out of the last sentence.....

Well considering how people misread the question it was probably a good idea not to do it. The questions were awkward though... No actual damage in defective product q. Trespass being an anachronistic throwback... Fantastic gratuitous use of a big word !

Milkypops

rickety cricket wrote: »

Well considering how people misread the question it was probably a good idea not to do it. The questions were awkward though... No actual damage in defective product q. Trespass being an anachronistic throwback... Fantastic gratuitous use of a big word !

ya i started the defective products one and then stopped after a page and went to standard of care instead....

my trespass question was all over the shop. hoping defamation, rylands and neg misstatement were alright to cover my tress pass and s.o.c.

i feel sick at the thought of company now!

rickety cricket

Milkypops wrote: »

ya i started the defective products one and then stopped after a page and went to standard of care instead....

my trespass question was all over the shop. hoping defamation, rylands and neg misstatement were alright to cover my tress pass and s.o.c.

i feel sick at the thought of company now!

Yeah standard of care seemed easy but i always get thrown when it says irish cases cos i forget which are which and fear saying its irish when its english!
Company is a pain, so much stuff! Directors though is at least thats one question! Then a share trabsfer and ostensible authority / turauands woukd be lovely. After that winding up or s.205 and receivership. Dispositions i could do but hate transcribing CA.

Milkypops

rickety cricket wrote: »

Yeah standard of care seemed easy but i always get thrown when it says irish cases cos i forget which are which and fear saying its irish when its english!
Company is a pain, so much stuff! Directors though is at least thats one question! Then a share trabsfer and ostensible authority / turauands woukd be lovely. After that winding up or s.205 and receivership. Dispositions i could do but hate transcribing CA.

ya ideal paper is:

lifting the veil only....none of this advantages of incorporation please
corp authority
directors (prob question on common law and stick in a bit of statute at the end)
share transfer
s.231(e) or receivership

dispostions would be ok or a question on charges aswell....ooh so much to get through!

LostOutForeign

Milkypops wrote: »

s.231(e) or receivership

Think you mean 213

Milkypops

LostOutForeign wrote: »

Think you mean 213

haha yes typo.....better not do that in the exam :P

CRM1

That Tort paper in comparison to previous ones was just in a word: Awkward. As for question 5. Uhhhh. Lets hope his standard of care in marking is pretty lenient.

crosshair12

Wasn't too disappointed with today's paper, got 5 questions done, except I made the same error WRT the question on nervous shock/damages. (Damn that superfluous 's'!)
Does anyone think there'll be a degree of leniency shown in the event that a number of people made the same error? Granted, it's a mistake borne of not reading the question properly, but for such a small linguistic distinction to potentially be the difference between passing and failing is tough to swallow...

ShamblesB

For question 3 did anybody discuss foreseeability of damages test ie the wagon mound r have i just added a third spin to it?

sally01

In general when the question is advise X as to any action, is it ok to advise them they probably wouldn't succeed in an action if you back it up with why? Doesn't seem to arise very often in the case of exams.

rickety cricket

ShamblesB wrote: »

For question 3 did anybody discuss foreseeability of damages test ie the wagon mound r have i just added a third spin to it?

I dont think that comes into it however to write about isn't wrong I just wouldn't see it as necessary because the builders accepted liability so i took that as meaning there isnt any issue of he negligence principles to be discussed.

rickety cricket

sally01 wrote: »

In general when the question is advise X as to any action, is it ok to advise them they probably wouldn't succeed in an action if you back it up with why? Doesn't seem to arise very often in the case of exams.

Absolutely. They ask you to advise so all possible outcomes are accepted. Unless its a straightforward case then there may be valid reason to advise against.

sally01

rickety cricket wrote: »

Absolutely. They ask you to advise so all possible outcomes are accepted. Unless its a straightforward case then there may be valid reason to advise against.

Deep down I knew that but exam pressures make for all kinds of crazy thoughts! Just start to doubt everything. Thanks :-) this forum is a god send for these exams.

ShamblesB

Well i discussed punitive damages and compensatory damages too well just sort of mentioned it cos i left that topic out. Hopefully i get a mark! for the negligent misstatement question i said she probably wouldnt succeed. Under liability for defective products does damage include damage to the product itself or does it have to damage other property or a person? Because there was mention of any other sort of damage arising from the defect in that question.

Milkypops

ShamblesB wrote: »

Well i discussed punitive damages and compensatory damages too well just sort of mentioned it cos i left that topic out. Hopefully i get a mark! for the negligent misstatement question i said she probably wouldnt succeed. Under liability for defective products does damage include damage to the product itself or does it have to damage other property or a person? Because there was mention of any other sort of damage arising from the defect in that question.

i said she might given that proximity of relationship isnt as strict here in comparison to the UK and the fact that he was a well known financial advisor that gave no qualification....meh its done now oh well haha

im nearly sure it has to be damage to something other than the product....there was a question like that in march 2011 and the person had to rely on general negligence for the manufacturers liability!

crosshair12

Milkypops wrote: »

i said she might given that proximity of relationship isnt as strict here in comparison to the UK and the fact that he was a well known financial advisor that gave no qualification....meh its done now oh well haha

im nearly sure it has to be damage to something other than the product....there was a question like that in march 2011 and the person had to rely on general negligence for the manufacturers liability!

I suggested that lack of qualification of his statement and disclaimer might work against Daniel...I was also sorely tempted to refer to the 'twitter machine', but decided I better not push my luck!

CRM1

Has anyone got sample answers for Property would be greatly appreciated can swap for contract, constitutional or equity??

michelle2000

What are people doing for property? Are ye taking the risk that nothing changes this paper and studying 6 topics? Any predictions? Best if luck to those doing company tomorrow