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

Bayb12

Pink lily wrote: »

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!!

If you already have notes made for previous exams you should be able to study for this round

oraghabd

Hi,

Does anyone have an updated exam grid for constitutional? Have plenty to send on myself if you need anything

Thanks

smeal

Pink lily wrote: »

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!!

If you have the bulk of the notes done then you are off to a good start. I would advise getting your hands on the lecture DVDS. I can't advertise directly here but there are people selling them on Done Deal for the last sittings. They're great for filling in the gaps and saves you from having to physically read the whole manual.

I'll probably go travelling when I'm qualified when I have a chance to save money- all my savings atm are going towards fees

Robbo

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

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

Mareva. An essay based on a quote from O'Mahony -v- Horgan on balancing the rights of the parties.

hiyakeano

Does anyone know if it's possible to cut down/leave out any topics from the Contract law syllabus without too much risk?

I really struggle with Contract Law and it'd be my weakest subject, so any help on this would be greatly appreciated!

grlpwr

Hi everyone, just a quick question as to whether anyone has the examiner's report for the March 2016 tort sitting, I have them myself for company/contract/equity if it would suit anyone to swap?

Many thanks,

Yoop

Quick question; if I handed in my EU legislation the week before, would they take it? I'm travelling up from Cork and Contract is my last exam before EU. I handed my Company and Property stuff in the day before for the last sitting so I'm just wondering if 5 days before is a little too early. Thank you!

grlpwr

Yoop wrote: »

Quick question; if I handed in my EU legislation the week before, would they take it? I'm travelling up from Cork and Contract is my last exam before EU. I handed my Company and Property stuff in the day before for the last sitting so I'm just wondering if 5 days before is a little too early. Thank you!

Almost positive that you can hand in all your legislation etc on the first day (or any day) for all the exams you are sitting

kiwi33

Hi guys. Just in relation to capital murder Section 3 I read in the manual that this does not apply to an off-duty Garda. I was reading the facts of DPP v Murray and it said that Marie Murray shot a garda who was off-duty. It doesn't expressly say whether she was acquitted or not as he wasn't a garda. Can somebody please clarify this for me? I am reading it correctly?

tednugent13

What was the pass rate for Compamy in the last sitting? Some cu*t of a paper!

Yoop

tednugent13 wrote: »

What was the pass rate for Compamy in the last sitting? Some cu*t of a paper!

Over 70%, actually up on previous sittings. That was the biggest shock in the entire report booklet.

Hunchback

Yoop wrote: »

Over 70%, actually up on previous sittings. That was the biggest shock in the entire report booklet.

I'd love to get a shniff of that report booklet!

Hunchback

If I may, Yoop, what was the pass rate in Tort?

Thanks in advance,

Hunchback

binkevii

Hi, anyone sitting all 8 exams in October?

Yoop

Hunchback wrote: »

If I may, Yoop, what was the pass rate in Tort?

Thanks in advance,

Hunchback

Tort was up on the previous sitting as well. According to his report this isn't surprising as the paper was very flexible. I'm pretty sure he didn't give a percentage but I'll check again when I get home and let you know if there was one.

The Talking Bread

Bloody Olympics.............killing my study!

IRAC War

Hi folks - it was suggested that this is the relevant thread for this even though it's undergraduate. I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on it? Many Thanks in advance! Bear in mind it's pretty narrow and undergraduate level. It's specifically Art 101 TFEU.

Zamzung and Pillips are two global producers of smart card chips which are widely used and sold to tech manufacturers throughout the European Union. Smart card chips are used in everything from mobile telephone SIM cards to bank cards, identity cards, passports, pay TV cards, and various other applications.

Every few months, the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of these companies, both avid poker players, meet at the Casino de Monte Carlo to attend an invitation-only poker game. Without fail after these weekends, there will be a change in the price that Zamzung charges for its smart cards, which is then mirrored a week later by Pillips.
The Commission takes an action against the two companies, alleging that they are engaged in anti-competitive practices in breach of Article 101 TFEU.

The companies respond by arguing that there is no evidence of an agreement between them. They further contend that, even should the Commission find them in breach, their monthly meetings involved swapping tips on capacity maximisation; namely, how to pack greater amounts of data into a single smart card chip; that such exchanges greatly benefitted manufacturers and resulted in more powerful mobile devices for European consumers.

Advise the Commission on whether such practices are anti-competitive and in breach of Article 101 TFEU and on how the Court will rule on the various defences being put forward.

Issues

The issues in the instant case revolve around defences to a breach of Article 101 TFEU and the standards of proof employed by the commission and CJEU in assessing breaches. There appears to be two issues advanced:
(i) Is there concerted price fixing;
(ii) An admitted fact that information is being shared between parties in regard to capacity maximisation.

Relevant Law

Obviously Article 101 TFEU is relevant here, specifically S1(a) ‘directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions’ and S3. Article 101 deals with, to use the vernacular, cartels. Article 101 uses the term ‘undertaking’ which is a catch all term defined broadly by the CJEU to encompass any entity engaged in commercial activity, see generally Polypropylene.

An agreement is also very broadly defined. The Quinine Cartel case is authority that even a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ even one as loosely defined as to continue to do in the EU what is done worldwide, is sufficient as long as there is a meeting of the minds. Generally, agreements can be defined as either horizontal – between competitors at the same level as in Quinine or vertical as in Consten and Grundig where the agreement is between two entities at different points in the supply chain, such as exclusive distribution agreements. In the instant case a horizontal agreement is alleged to be in effect.

Polypropylene is also authority that an agreement may be oral, non-binding and contain no formal sanctions for breach. Bayer is further authority for the same proposition. Indeed, in Ferriere Nord the general court held that the only relevant question was whether [the undertaking] participated with other undertakings having the object or effect of restricting competition and whether the agreement was likely to affect trade between member states.

To underscore how broad, the foregoing definitions are, if one looks at the jurisprudence of the next two scenarios addressed within Article 101, one can see that ‘decisions’ and ‘concerted practices’ received equally broad treatment in NV IAZ International and Imperial Chemical Industries respectively.

There is no suggestion here that decision by associations is at issue here but ‘concerted practices’ are relevant if an oligopoly is assumed. Given that the question posed does not set out the prevailing market conditions it may be assumed that the two named companies enjoy a large market share. ‘Concerted practices’ are a difficult area given that if a small number of undertakings operate in the same geographic and temporal market they are naturally going to react to one another.

Imperial Chemical Industries defines a concerted practice as ‘a form of coordination between undertakings, which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so-called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition’. In the instant case dye prices where changing by a similar amount at similar times. The CJEU pointed out that this type of behaviour is strong evidence of a concerted practice. However, that it could also be explained by market conditions (price of raw materials etc.). Such issues were not borne out by the facts of this case and the undertakings were found in breach.

In Wood Pulp Cartel case the CJEU annulled a large part of the commissions finding that undertakings had operated in parallel citing that to prove a concerted practice ‘it must be the only plausible explanation for the conduct’.

Conten and Grundig is authority that agreements must simply have the object of distorting competition, it is no necessary to show actual distortion. Although this is very broad the effect must between member states. If it is not, then the issue remains within the purview of national competition law. The test here is established in the SPM case and is met where it is possible ‘…to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability… that the agreement in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential on the pattern of trade between member states.’

Application

In application to the instant case there is an admitted agreement in relation to sharing information in regard to capacity maximisation. There is no suggestion that this is having any negative effects but does have the potential to be problematic. However, both Article 101 (3) would allow an exemption here on the basis of the benefit to the consumer outweighing the hard done by the breach and also a block exemption on agreements in relation to research and development. This allows us to deal with this issue summarily.

The issue surrounding pricing is more complex and relates if not to an agreement then certainly to a concerted practice. In application of Polypropylene and Bayer it is clear the definition is very broad. While one would like independent evidence of an agreement such as testimony of a witness it is submitted that the balance of probabilities suggests that an agreement, however loose is in affect given the surrounding circumstances. The CJEU has shown it will annul such decisions, however in Wood Pulp Cartel if it is not the only plausible explanation – there is not enough information to say with certainty if this is the case.

In regard to concerted practises Imperial Chemical is authority that an actual agreement is not necessary, so again although evidence of an agreement is advantageous, a breach can still be proven under the C.P. case law.

SPM is very broad and it is submitted that given the two undertaking’s ubiquity the test is easily met.

Conclusion

The CJEU will no doubt allow the sharing of information in regard to capacity maximisation for the reasons laid out above.

In regard to price fixing, an agreement may or may not be found. A C.P. is almost certainly in place given the surrounding circumstantial evidence. The one issue which we do not have enough information in relation to is are there other factors such as raw material cost, although given the frequency and consistency of the price changes it is unlikely to be the case that this is the causative factor.

Sorry the formatting didn't carry over tried to put some back in with tags.

Galwaygal2015

Hi all!Second time trying these exams and doing 5 this time!just wondering (and I am happy to mail over indep college notes,revision tutorials exams papers etc in exchange)if anyone has any uptodate grids for criminal company equity contract constitutional or alternatively tort(tort is for a friend)again I have most indep material apart from the grids.I also have sample answers on all of the above from griffith to mail as a thank you!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Sent off my application form, spent that €630. No backing out now!

This is my third attempt at the exams, having gone through brain surgery since my last sitting which will hopefully have helped my brain and all the study/exam issues that came with it. I think I'm making it my last attempt though. If I fail these I need to come up with a new career option, preferably one that doesn't involve exams!

nuac

//IMod
Irac War

Price fixing etc


While your question and suggested solution is interesting, perhaps it would be better in a thread of its own?
Most of the posts on this thread are views on exam related topics;l

IRAC War

nuac wrote: »

//IMod
Irac War

Price fixing etc


While you question and suggested solution is interesting, perhaps it would be better in a thread of its own?
Most of the posts on this thread are views on exam related topics;l

More than happy for it to be please It might get some more attention. That said the exam is tomorrow and I'm sitting here still trying to learn my MEQRs from my CEEs but maybe it'll be useful for the next retake

How people do all this then do it again for the FE-1s I'll never know. It really is making the proposition of doing 5 exams in 5 days next year much less daunting as I like those subjects! :pac:

lawgal

Hi I am wondering if anyone has an up-to-date grid for EU and would be as kind as to pass it on? It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

The Talking Bread

Anyone know off hand how much Griffiths charge for replacement manuals. Some asshole picked up my bag whilst I was in the barber. Sad life.

Thankfully just had 1 manual and past exams thing inside

odwyer94

How many topics are people studying for each subject?

As this is my first sitting and I only recently began studying I decided I'm going to do Equity, Property, Criminal and Contract and only study 8-10 topics for each. Do you think this sounds like a good idea or not?

lovelylaw

Hi all!
What topics are a must for constitutional law?
The course is huge but don't want to get caught out on the day. Is it a matter of nearly all the topics? The case note question is unpredictable.
Any advice?

Yoop

odwyer94 wrote: »

How many topics are people studying for each subject?

As this is my first sitting and I only recently began studying I decided I'm going to do Equity, Property, Criminal and Contract and only study 8-10 topics for each. Do you think this sounds like a good idea or not?

I passed Criminal, Equity and Property in the last sitting and my biggest piece of advice would be to be extremely careful with what you leave out for Criminal; I'm not sure if you've had a look at the exam papers but there's often a mix of topics in a question and there's also usually a four or five parter covering different topics which is generally nice, short and easy to do so it's a shame to realise you can only do half because you haven't covered everything. Obviously there's some things that you can take a gamble on; the same characteristics and classification question doesn't generally come up two sittings in a row for example, but Criminal is definitely one where you shouldn't cut too many corners.

With Property there seems to be a general trend of the most relevant topics being examined; Succession, Co-Ownerhip etc. and the essay questions are often pretty similar so you can cut down a little that way.

I'm taking Contract this sitting and I'm leaving out Consumer Protection. Obviously there'll be some topics I won't do in as much detail as they rarely come up but I'm super nervous about leaving out too much or leaving any topic out altogether. I was in the awful position of only being able to answer four questions on the Company paper in the last sitting, including one I had decided to look at the night before and that was what got me my pass. Knowing something in the littlest detail can be the difference between a 49 and a 50.

I know there's a lot to learn and time can be an issue, but if you're going to cut things you need to be smart about it and make sure what you're studying will do you justice. One things that's always repeated in the reports is that not attempting all questions is a major cause of failing - there's no point having 3 or 4 good answers if you can't answer a fifth. So for Equity for example, I wouldn't recommend leaving out Injunctions entirely, but you could perhaps just have a basic knowledge of Marevas which came up in March.


I'm sure there are others with better nerves than me who will disagree though

hullaballoo

Moderator:

The charter in this forum isn't one that applies optionally.

Trading isn't allowed here because people were unable to stick to a few simple rules. We are not able to cope with things when they go wrong because we haven't got the tools as moderators.

If you want to trade your stuff, go to a stuff trading site but do not bother us.

corkres1989

Yoop wrote: »

I passed Criminal, Equity and Property in the last sitting and my biggest piece of advice would be to be extremely careful with what you leave out for Criminal; I'm not sure if you've had a look at the exam papers but there's often a mix of topics in a question and there's also usually a four or five parter covering different topics which is generally nice, short and easy to do so it's a shame to realise you can only do half because you haven't covered everything. Obviously there's some things that you can take a gamble on; the same characteristics and classification question doesn't generally come up two sittings in a row for example, but Criminal is definitely one where you shouldn't cut too many corners.

With Property there seems to be a general trend of the most relevant topics being examined; Succession, Co-Ownerhip etc. and the essay questions are often pretty similar so you can cut down a little that way.

I'm taking Contract this sitting and I'm leaving out Consumer Protection. Obviously there'll be some topics I won't do in as much detail as they rarely come up but I'm super nervous about leaving out too much or leaving any topic out altogether. I was in the awful position of only being able to answer four questions on the Company paper in the last sitting, including one I had decided to look at the night before and that was what got me my pass. Knowing something in the littlest detail can be the difference between a 49 and a 50.

I know there's a lot to learn and time can be an issue, but if you're going to cut things you need to be smart about it and make sure what you're studying will do you justice. One things that's always repeated in the reports is that not attempting all questions is a major cause of failing - there's no point having 3 or 4 good answers if you can't answer a fifth. So for Equity for example, I wouldn't recommend leaving out Injunctions entirely, but you could perhaps just have a basic knowledge of Marevas which came up in March.


I'm sure there are others with better nerves than me who will disagree though

For equity, I would suggest adding Anton Pillar orders also, and if you leave out the rest of injunctions do not leave out anything else!

odwyer94

Any predictions for Equity, Contract or Property?

LegalLaaaaady

Hello! This might seem like a daft question but I'm sitting the exams in October and was wondering if anybody knew if it's okay to abbreviate in the exams? I know at university level the lectures don't mind it at all and would in fact encourage it to save students time. By abbreviate I mean 'ct' for court or 'sa 1965' for succession act etc (obviously writing it out normally first and using a reference such as succession act 1965 (hereafter known as 'sa 1965')).

Does anyone have any advice as to whether this is allowed? Thanks!