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

legalease2172

Dunne1995 wrote: »

Might be bit of a long shot but does anyone have a copy of the Companies Act that I can bring into exam? OPW wants 111€ and Bloomsbury Professional want 95€.

Thanks in advance

I do! PM me about it!

hannahs8q9

I'm looking for exam grids for Tort, Constitutional and EU if anyone can help? I have Property, Company and Contract papers from the last set if that's any use!

law_student1

Hi guys,

Is there any topics safe enough to leave out for Constitutional? 28 is just too many to write out and learn!

JCJCJC

smeal wrote: »

Hi Guys- back to the study today after weeks of avoiding it! Failed Contract and Tort last time so back with a bang this time hopefully to pass my final two..

Just wondering if somebody could help me out with a question on the Contract paper last sitting.. It was question 2, second part involving Sinead the farmer:-

"Sinead purchased a 6 month old tractor for her farm from Tractor Supplies for 15k. When she purchased the tractor she told Max the Sales Rep that she needed the tractor to access fields up steep hills. Max reassured her the tractor would be "great on rough terrain". No documents were signed during the transaction howevr Sinead receives a short receipt for payment. However when Sinead takes the tractor out on the farm it is not suitable for going up high fields and regularly stalls and breakdowns going up steep hills. When she complains to Max he says that "all sales are final" and that she has no rights as she is not a consumer. Advise Sinead. For the purposes of this question please assume that Sinead is not a consumer.".

I can see how she is not a consumer as she purchased a good that is through the course of her normal business but how would you expand on that? The manual is pretty limited. Would you try and turn the question on its head and go through a speel of explaining what exactly a consumer is and how the legislation wouldnt apply to Sinead? Maybe I'm missing something really obvious but to me going that approach would just be a load of waffle? The Q really phased me in the last sitting- I can't remember what I wrote but it was obviously sh*te as I failed ha!!

Any help would be appreciated

I'm an old-timer just dropping back in here for a minute, post-PPC2 right now. My reaction would be - forget consumer law, obviously. This is contract only. Are you looking at breach of a term, or breach of a warranty? Establishing terms will be difficult, you don't have a written contract. However, you can evidence the existence of the contract with the receipt. I think you'll be arguing that what the vendor said induced the purchaser to enter the contract, therefore it was a warranty. Breach leads to repudiation, money back, tractor back. With every respect to the other poster, buying at undervalue isn't any barrier to recovery. Once consideration passes, there's a contract. Consideration only has to be sufficient, it doesn't have to be adequate. Remember the sweet wrapper cases from your text books.
I'd also check if the purchaser migh be entitled to damages, eg if she had to hire a contractor etc.
So, your sample answer might deal with breach of contract, equitable and legal remedies, breach of warranty, consideration and damages.
How's that?

Jc

hullaballoo

JCJCJC wrote: »

With every respect to the other poster, buying at undervalue isn't any barrier to recovery. Once consideration passes, there's a contract. Consideration only has to be sufficient, it doesn't have to be adequate. Remember the sweet wrapper cases from your text books.

If you read my post a again, I specifically mentioned the price in relation to caveat emptor. It has nothing to do with the adequacy of consideration etc., it's an entirely different point.

If I was marking an exam and someone brought up the adequacy of consideration, I'd firstly fall asleep and secondly take as many marks as I reasonably could from them. On the other hand, if someone engaged with the relative commercial nous that would be reasonably expected of the parties to a business transaction and how a sole trader might be treated in those circumstances, I'd be better pleased!

JCJCJC

@)Hullabaloo, is caveat emptor a defence in an action for breach of contract?
HAving thought some more about the question, I now think the 15k figure is there to give you an opportunity to mention jurisdiction, since 15k is now the limit for the District Court, per the Courts & Civil Law Act, 2013. It's hardly a coincidence. A good answer would mention that, imho.

hullaballoo

JCJCJC wrote: »

@)Hullabaloo, is caveat emptor a defence in an action for breach of contract?
HAving thought some more about the question, I now think the 15k figure is there to give you an opportunity to mention jurisdiction, since 15k is now the limit for the District Court, per the Courts & Civil Law Act, 2013. It's hardly a coincidence. A good answer would mention that, imho.

I have looked into it in (a bit!) more detail even though no one here seems to be paying me, but there is no harm in having a to-and-fro to explore the question and maybe give food for thought to those sitting contract down the line...

Caveat emptor is a principle of contract law more than a defence, albeit one that has been rendered less important by statute. It still governs non-consumer contracts. It's application has been limited by SOGA 1893 and judicial interpretation. Specifically, s. 14 of the SOGA 1893 introduced implied terms into contracts for the sale of goods as to quality and fitness for purpose.

There is still a balancing between the relative expertise of the parties regarding the impact of all of this. If the buyer has particular expertise in buying goods of a particular nature, it will be more difficult for him to recover for breach of contract than one who is actually relying on the seller's expertise for guidance.

I think your point about the jurisdiction is a great point and one for further exploration in any answer because some remedies will not be available in the DC, which has no equitable jurisdiciton.

Just out of interest, do you think Sinead would be successful?

Hunchback

I would explore whether or not the purchaser was induced to purchase the tractor on the basis of the seller's statement, but after that in my view you could explore the fact that 'going up steep hills' might not be the same thing as being 'great on rough terrain' thereby addressing both the warranty and caveat emptor issues raised by JCJCJC and Hullaballoo

DISCLAIMER - there is literally no beginning to my knowledge of tractors

Redo91

Hi all. I hope the study is going well. Its been a while since I posted on here. Health problems meant that I haven't sat the FE-1s since March of last year. I'm back to myself now so as of Tuesday I started studying Tort with the aim of sitting it in October. So far I've passed Equity, Contract, Property Law (at the 2nd attempt), EU and Criminal Law. For my last sitting I just attempted Tort as unlike the previous two sittings, when I was studying full-time, I was also working part-time in a supermarket. This was the first time I had ever studied and worked at the same time and my time management was way off. I failed Tort miserably as I wasn't nearly as prepared as I was for my previous exams. I'm still working the same part-time job this time around but as the exam is two months away, and I have most of my notes typed up bar a few possibly additions, I feel like I'll be much better prepared this time around.

If anyone could give me some advice on Tort that would be great. Last time around I covered the following:
Negligence
Professional Negligence
Product Liability
Miscellaneous Liability
Economic Loss
Vicarious Liability
Occupiers Liability Act
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Nervous Shock
Trespass

Due to time constraints last time around I left out Defamation as despite the fact I enjoyed it when I studied it previously, it's a pretty big topic. I've already done up notes on it over Tuesday and yesterday so I'll be adding that to the above. Is there any other topics I should be including? Is it safe to leave out the chapters on defences and remedies as these will be covered in the other chapters they apply to?

Lastly (sorry for the essay), when I was doing my notes on defamation I noticed that the manual (City Colleges) did not include injunctions as a possibly remedy even though it was in the text books I looked up. Should I not be including injunctions or is there a reason they were left out of the manual? Thanks in advance for any help! I know from past experiences that these exams are very stressful so any advice would be greatly appreciated. If anyone has questions about the exams I've passed feel free to ask although I'm not sure how fresh my memory will be!

JCJCJC

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have looked into it in (a bit!) more detail even though no one here seems to be paying me, but there is no harm in having a to-and-fro to explore the question and maybe give food for thought to those sitting contract down the line...

Caveat emptor is a principle of contract law more than a defence, albeit one that has been rendered less important by statute. It still governs non-consumer contracts. It's application has been limited by SOGA 1893 and judicial interpretation. Specifically, s. 14 of the SOGA 1893 introduced implied terms into contracts for the sale of goods as to quality and fitness for purpose.

There is still a balancing between the relative expertise of the parties regarding the impact of all of this. If the buyer has particular expertise in buying goods of a particular nature, it will be more difficult for him to recover for breach of contract than one who is actually relying on the seller's expertise for guidance.

I think your point about the jurisdiction is a great point and one for further exploration in any answer because some remedies will not be available in the DC, which has no equitable jurisdiciton.

Just out of interest, do you think Sinead would be successful?

I agree, I'm all for lively debate, different people will always see different angles in a problem. When we have meetings in the practise where I work it is always interesting to see how different people approach problems.

The only contract law book I have available to me today is Friel, there's nothing in the index at any rate on caveat emptor. There is a good explanation of it here:

Halston Street Credit Union Ltd -v- Costello [2014] IEHC 619 (16 December 2014)

The principle of caveat emptor has the effect that one party is not bound to disclose to the other all the material facts or circumstances which might affect a bargain and which are known only to the non-disclosing party. Even if the non-disclosing party knows that the other is contracting under a misapprehension about the applicable facts, the general rule in transactions between sophisticated commercial entities is that the non-disclosing party has no duty to disillusion the other. Of course the law may require disclosure, even in commercial transactions between commercial traders, as for example in instances where a duty of utmost good faith arises or there is a fiduciary or significantly unequal relationship between them. Active concealment too may constitute misrepresentation. Save in these instances, however, each party to dealings between sophisticated commercial traders must protect itself from the consequences of its own mistakes. There is, of course, a distinction to be drawn between a mistake about the terms of a contract and a mistake about the facts or circumstances surrounding the formation of a contract. The consideration of that distinction is, however, for another judgment. In the present context what is of particular interest is the policy that informs the principle of caveat emptor. Clearly this policy is that in entering into a contract with each other, sophisticated commercial traders must generally use their own judgment and/or take care to ensure that the terms of the applicable contract secure to them what they want.

Is a farmer, up against a tractor dealer, a sophisticated commercial trader? If so, then she simply bought the wrong tractor - tough?

Good point about rough terrain -v- hillclimbing, it should be teased out in a good exam answer. Is it an implied term in a contract for a tractor that it should be able to climb steep hills? Alternatively, is any tractor of merchantable quality if it can't climb steep hills?

Your point about the DC lacking jurisdiction reinforces my suggestion that the 15k price was set to prompt a remark about jurisdiction in the better answers; it also confirms that you keep the hell out of equity and stay in pure contract law; this is after all a contract exam paper.

Does anyone know what the examiner said re this question in the exam report?

legalease2172

I concur :P

JCJCJC wrote: »

I agree, I'm all for lively debate, different people will always see different angles in a problem. When we have meetings in the practise where I work it is always interesting to see how different people approach problems.

The only contract law book I have available to me today is Friel, there's nothing in the index at any rate on caveat emptor. There is a good explanation of it here:

Halston Street Credit Union Ltd -v- Costello [2014] IEHC 619 (16 December 2014)

The principle of caveat emptor has the effect that one party is not bound to disclose to the other all the material facts or circumstances which might affect a bargain and which are known only to the non-disclosing party. Even if the non-disclosing party knows that the other is contracting under a misapprehension about the applicable facts, the general rule in transactions between sophisticated commercial entities is that the non-disclosing party has no duty to disillusion the other. Of course the law may require disclosure, even in commercial transactions between commercial traders, as for example in instances where a duty of utmost good faith arises or there is a fiduciary or significantly unequal relationship between them. Active concealment too may constitute misrepresentation. Save in these instances, however, each party to dealings between sophisticated commercial traders must protect itself from the consequences of its own mistakes. There is, of course, a distinction to be drawn between a mistake about the terms of a contract and a mistake about the facts or circumstances surrounding the formation of a contract. The consideration of that distinction is, however, for another judgment. In the present context what is of particular interest is the policy that informs the principle of caveat emptor. Clearly this policy is that in entering into a contract with each other, sophisticated commercial traders must generally use their own judgment and/or take care to ensure that the terms of the applicable contract secure to them what they want.

Is a farmer, up against a tractor dealer, a sophisticated commercial trader? If so, then she simply bought the wrong tractor - tough?

Good point about rough terrain -v- hillclimbing, it should be teased out in a good exam answer. Is it an implied term in a contract for a tractor that it should be able to climb steep hills? Alternatively, is any tractor of merchantable quality if it can't climb steep hills?

Your point about the DC lacking jurisdiction reinforces my suggestion that the 15k price was set to prompt a remark about jurisdiction in the better answers; it also confirms that you keep the hell out of equity and stay in pure contract law; this is after all a contract exam paper.

Does anyone know what the examiner said re this question in the exam report?

hullaballoo

JCJCJC wrote: »

I agree, I'm all for lively debate, different people will always see different angles in a problem. When we have meetings in the practise where I work it is always interesting to see how different people approach problems.

Yes, if lawyers were all in agreement about everything, the Four Courts would be a very dull place! Equally, an individual lawyer on their own won't pick up on all facets of a case immediately, or even on a second pass.

Halston Street Credit Union Ltd -v- Costello [2014] IEHC 619 (16 December 2014)

[...]
Is a farmer, up against a tractor dealer, a sophisticated commercial trader? If so, then she simply bought the wrong tractor - tough?

That's really the crux of the question, imo. There is a significantly lengthier discussion in McDermott from para. [11.60] et seq. but the line of jurisprudence is confusing and there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut applicable standard for assessing the extent of someone's commercial acumen.

It seems to me that it will come down to a balancing of the evidence in relation to each party's level of expertise in the area and the extent to which it is reasonable for the other party to read in expertise where it is not made apparent to them.

Overall, it's about as clear as mud and I presume that the range of "right answers" in this area is quite broad.

Good point about rough terrain -v- hillclimbing, it should be teased out in a good exam answer. Is it an implied term in a contract for a tractor that it should be able to climb steep hills? Alternatively, is any tractor of merchantable quality if it can't climb steep hills?

There is authority to say that once the specific purpose for which goods are to be used is communicated to the seller, the buyer may be able to recover where the goods are not fit for that purpose. However, here, it's not clear whether the purpose misunderstood the purpose as it was miscommunicated or that he chose to overlook it and give a warranty instead that it was "good over rough terrain." There is a case about fresh crabs of all things that is relevant here.

nuac

Impressive ideas all,

Sorry that I am not once again preparing for examinations - NOT

Good luck to all

JCJCJC

hannahs8q9 wrote: »

You can highlight and underline the Act.

You can also do a big of 'strategic highlighting' in your companies act and Eu treaties. If you're studying a treaty article that relates to, for example, Commission - v- Germany, you can highlight words beginning with g, e, r, etc 😉 and you're still within the rules...

Hunchback

JCJCJC wrote: »

You can also do a big of 'strategic highlighting' in your companies act and Eu treaties. If you're studying a treaty article that relates to, for example, Commission - v- Germany, you can highlight words beginning with g, e, r, etc 😉 and you're still within the rules...

Very clever indeed. But I think a student would want to tread carefully with this one. The last thing any student would want is any sort of 'adjudication' being required in relation to their legislation on their way into the exam hall. I wonder if there is a line that would be drawn somewhere by the checkers, even if the highlighting technique you suggest is not explicitly prohibited by the exam regulations. At any rate, I suppose having the letters 'G' 'E' 'R' highlighted would prolly appear relatively innocuous - less obvious than, say highlighting all the letters in the word 'Germany'.

I admire your highlighting ingenuity though!

Dokers

Hello all. I'm sitting the FE1s in October and doing Contract, Equity, Criminal and Constitutional. The last time I sat the exams was April 2015 and I managed to pass Contract and Equity but failed the other two (I know!)

I still have notes, manuals, past papers, examiner reports, sample questions... I'm starting my study now in earnest while working full time and I'm wondering just how out of date my material is. From looking at the law society it doesn't seem the syllabus has changed very much.

Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?

Chuckler

Hey all, I'm back to resit these soul destroying exams after failing them in October 2015 (passed Tort and Equity, failed Contract). I'm sitting Property this time round also. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what came up on the last exam for these four topics?

angelicapickle

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm an old-timer just dropping back in here for a minute, post-PPC2 right now. My reaction would be - forget consumer law, obviously. This is contract only. Are you looking at breach of a term, or breach of a warranty? Establishing terms will be difficult, you don't have a written contract. However, you can evidence the existence of the contract with the receipt. I think you'll be arguing that what the vendor said induced the purchaser to enter the contract, therefore it was a warranty. Breach leads to repudiation, money back, tractor back. With every respect to the other poster, buying at undervalue isn't any barrier to recovery. Once consideration passes, there's a contract. Consideration only has to be sufficient, it doesn't have to be adequate. Remember the sweet wrapper cases from your text books.
I'd also check if the purchaser migh be entitled to damages, eg if she had to hire a contractor etc.
So, your sample answer might deal with breach of contract, equitable and legal remedies, breach of warranty, consideration and damages.
How's that?

Jc

I wouldn't underestimate the significance of the consumer law. In past examination reports it has been stressed how the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act applies to both commercial and consumer contracts and how candidates wrongly disregard it on the basis that the contract was a commercial sale.

My interpretation is that yes, section 13, 14 and 15 can NEVER be contracted out when the customer is a consumer. But section 55(4) provides if the buyer is not a consumer,an exclusion clause will be only be enforceable if it is ‘fair and reasonable’. Factors to regard when determining whether an exclusion clause is fair and reasonable of relevance here include;
• The relative bargaining power of the parties;
• Any inducement to entering the contract
• Whether the customer had knowledge of the term (actual or constructive of the term having regard to custom or trade).

In George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds – the plaintiff purchased a quantity of seeds which turned out to be a different seed of a defective variety. The crop failed and P sued. The clause that limited liability to the price of seeds was deemed unfair an unreasonable in the circumstances. The court took into account that a serious loss involved.

That is just my interpretation and one possible argument, if I am mistaken someone please correct me! I'm also sitting these exams in October.

Redo91

Redo91 wrote: »

Hi all. I hope the study is going well. Its been a while since I posted on here. Health problems meant that I haven't sat the FE-1s since March of last year. I'm back to myself now so as of Tuesday I started studying Tort with the aim of sitting it in October. So far I've passed Equity, Contract, Property Law (at the 2nd attempt), EU and Criminal Law. For my last sitting I just attempted Tort as unlike the previous two sittings, when I was studying full-time, I was also working part-time in a supermarket. This was the first time I had ever studied and worked at the same time and my time management was way off. I failed Tort miserably as I wasn't nearly as prepared as I was for my previous exams. I'm still working the same part-time job this time around but as the exam is two months away, and I have most of my notes typed up bar a few possibly additions, I feel like I'll be much better prepared this time around.

If anyone could give me some advice on Tort that would be great. Last time around I covered the following:
Negligence
Professional Negligence
Product Liability
Miscellaneous Liability
Economic Loss
Vicarious Liability
Occupiers Liability Act
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Nervous Shock
Trespass

Due to time constraints last time around I left out Defamation as despite the fact I enjoyed it when I studied it previously, it's a pretty big topic. I've already done up notes on it over Tuesday and yesterday so I'll be adding that to the above. Is there any other topics I should be including? Is it safe to leave out the chapters on defences and remedies as these will be covered in the other chapters they apply to?

Lastly (sorry for the essay), when I was doing my notes on defamation I noticed that the manual (City Colleges) did not include injunctions as a possibly remedy even though it was in the text books I looked up. Should I not be including injunctions or is there a reason they were left out of the manual? Thanks in advance for any help! I know from past experiences that these exams are very stressful so any advice would be greatly appreciated. If anyone has questions about the exams I've passed feel free to ask although I'm not sure how fresh my memory will be!

Anyone able to give me some help with this? I mainly just want to know should I include injunctions as a remedy to defamation and whether there are any topics in general that I should cover aside from the above. Thanks!

spaz_hawk

Hi all, finally got through the exams after two years of reading through this thread and I'm down to Blackhall in a few weeks. Is there a separate thread for PPC1 and does anyone have a link? Best of luck to everyone with the upcoming exams!!

Hunchback

spaz_hawk wrote:

Hi all, finally got through the exams after two years of reading through this thread and I'm down to Blackhall in a few weeks. Is there a separate thread for PPC1 and does anyone have a link? Best of luck to everyone with the upcoming exams!!

There is a thread for it, on this forum. Search for Blackhall 2016

irishasj

Does anyone have any recommendations as to what to cover/leave out for Equity this sitting?

Thanks!

Gunslinger92

My query is similar to the above, I'm wondering which injunctions came up in the last sitting?

Dunne1995

Anyone sitting company law this sitting - the companies act will not be given out in the exam hall.

This was only done in the last sittings because the legislation was so new

Chuckler

irishasj wrote: »

Does anyone have any recommendations as to what to cover/leave out for Equity this sitting?

Thanks!

Any ideas are very welcome here!

kd2121

Hey guys, would anyone have an equity grid they wouldn't mind sharing?

Bayb12

If one was feeling short of time, what would be the subjects with the least amount to cover. Would it be better to do company this round while the legislation is still fairly new?

smeal

Bayb12 wrote: »

If one was feeling short of time, what would be the subjects with the least amount to cover. Would it be better to do company this round while the legislation is still fairly new?

Property, Criminal and Contract would probably be the shortest in terms of material. Company isn't too long however I did it before the legislation changed so i can't really guide you on how dense the new stuff is

Bayb12

Has anyone ever done a Griffith day course?

Pink lily

Hi all,

So I have attempted fe1s three times- every time all results have been above 45% - horrible. It's a bit late in the day but is the general consensus that it is too late to start looking over subjects I have already studied for October yes? Last time I passed 2 of the required 3 on the 1st sitting.

Also, have people who want to travel got that out of the way first or do you intend to study, qualify & then take time to travel??

I'm new to this so please be nice :-) Thanks for the help!!