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

Morris_fe1s

Contract Law.
S53(4) Sale of Goods Act 1893
My brain is running out of steam - can someone explain what this means in simple terms?
The examiners report mentions its relevance Q3b October 2012. However the model answer i am using fails to mention it all.

does it mean in simple terms you cant reject the goods but you can sue for damages?

Ms.Cat

Hi all, in relation to question 2 on the March 2014 Paper (Grainne, a widow, legislation that says that under Social Welfare Act anyone who is a widow is entitled to payment at Minister's discretion...but is then refused payment without reasons given) is a discussion of whether she can be considered a family and the 'marital family/non -marital families' discrimination in any way relevant? Or does the question just engage SOP, non delegation, fair procedures issues, given that the legislation specifically refers to widows?

Ownleme

Ms.Cat wrote: »

Hi all, in relation to question 2 on the March 2014 Paper (Grainne, a widow, legislation that says that under Social Welfare Act anyone who is a widow is entitled to payment at Minister's discretion...but is then refused payment without reasons given) is a discussion of whether she can be considered a family and the 'marital family/non -marital families' discrimination in any way relevant? Or does the question just engage SOP, non delegation, fair procedures issues, given that the legislation specifically refers to widows?

City college guy said u should discuss if she's a family seeing as she's a widow but if the examiner wants you to deal with discrimination he'll put another couple in the problem question that are being treated differently. Should b more than just hypothetical ppl might b treated differently

Milkypops

how are we supposed to do the question on private international law when the council regulation isn't in Blackstones??

dinemo6

Just got to see my exam number for this sitting and I'm almost 1,200 !!! :eek:

I'd say there's going to be massive crowds there for this sitting!

The letter also says all exams are on in the Red Cow so I presume Constitutional is on there too??

Eveline14

Would I be stupid to leave out share transfer for Company? I'm covering corporate personality,authority & capacity, directors duties, restriction & disqualification, corporate borrowings, winding up & distribution of assets. Wondering if I have enough there? Any thoughts?

Eveline14

thatdepends wrote: »

Does anyone know what came up in the tort march 2014 fe1 exam??

1. Defamation EQ
2. Causation PQ
3. Employers Liability PQ
4. Concurrent Wrongdoers EQ
5. Occupiers Liability PQ
6. Duty of Care EQ
7. Liability for Animals PQ
8. Medical Neg PQ

chops018

Eveline14 wrote: »

Would I be stupid to leave out share transfer for Company? I'm covering corporate personality,authority & capacity, directors duties, restriction & disqualification, corporate borrowings, winding up & distribution of assets. Wondering if I have enough there? Any thoughts?

Well it came up in March in the form of pre-emption clauses and the right to refuse to register the transfer of shares. I think that's 6 sittings on the trot it has come up now, so it is possibly due a non-appearance but you never know.

To be honest I wouldn't bother with winding up as a full essasy question came up on it in March. I would just focus on the disposition part of it i.e. s. 286, 218, 288.

prince89

Hi,

Could someone please send me on the link to the city colleges recorded April 2014 Contract and Company seminars? I had registered to be sent the link, but they never sent it and now its the weekend before the exam....

pinkvibes

Just a quick question re equity. Is anyone doing more valuable injunctions given that the just came up twice?
Thanks

safc_pete

pinkvibes wrote: »

Just a quick question re equity. Is anyone doing more valuable injunctions given that the just came up twice?
Thanks

I'm doing injunctions as I'd say it's pretty much a banker. I'm also hoping for SP and Purpose, Resulting, Secret or Charitable Trusts.

pinkvibes

safc_pete wrote: »

I'm doing injunctions as I'd say it's pretty much a banker. I'm also hoping for SP and Purpose, Resulting, Secret or Charitable Trusts.

I agree, defo doing injunctions but just wondering if others are covering mareva inj consider ING it came up at god last too sittings? Or is that even more reason to focus on marevas? Thanks

pinkvibes

pinkvibes wrote: »

I agree, defo doing injunctions but just wondering if others are covering mareva inj consider ING it came up at god last too sittings? Or is that even more reason to focus on marevas? Thanks

Stupid auto correct on new phone is doing my f*€king nut in. Anyway you get the drift of what I was trying to say.

Bayley1

pinkvibes wrote: »

I agree, defo doing injunctions but just wondering if others are covering mareva inj consider ING it came up at god last too sittings? Or is that even more reason to focus on marevas? Thanks

I'm the exact same, I'm def doin them but still trying to decide if I should focus more or less on mareva :-(

another question

Does anyone know if the Autumn sitting is in September or October this year?

Bayley1

another question wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Autumn sitting is in September or October this year?

The timetable is on the Law Society website, from memory I think it's last couple of week in Sept but runs to 3rd of Oct but obv this is subject to change....

safc_pete

pinkvibes wrote: »

I agree, defo doing injunctions but just wondering if others are covering mareva inj consider ING it came up at god last too sittings? Or is that even more reason to focus on marevas? Thanks

Ah I get ya now. I'll have a look at Mareva, but I'd be hoping more for Quia Timet and normal interlocutory injunctions.

Padjo1

Hi all,

Can anyone post what came up on the recent Criminal Law paper
I know its difficulty to list everything, so just looking for the topics of the Essay Questions that came up and Main Defences that where asked as part of the problem questions.
or if someone could post link for the revision class, I would appreciate it

Thanks

Eveline14

chops018 wrote: »

Well it came up in March in the form of pre-emption clauses and the right to refuse to register the transfer of shares. I think that's 6 sittings on the trot it has come up now, so it is possibly due a non-appearance but you never know.

To be honest I wouldn't bother with winding up as a full essasy question came up on it in March. I would just focus on the disposition part of it i.e. s. 286, 218, 288.

Thanks for that Chops! Panicking over quality v quantity at the mo.

Is it ok to highlight sections of the Companies Acts? Or are all markings a no no?

Lawstudent007

Any thoughts on whether this might be enough for tort:

Passing off
Product liability
Vicarious
Nervous shock
Nuisance
Duty of care
Standard of care
Causation
Remoteness
Res ipsa
Trespass to land and person
Remedies/damages
Occupiers liability

What you guys think? I have never sat tort and the grid seems well spread.

chops018

Eveline14 wrote: »

Thanks for that Chops! Panicking over quality v quantity at the mo.

Is it ok to highlight sections of the Companies Acts? Or are all markings a no no?

You can highlight, underline, and even place tabs on as much as you like. You cannot write anything on it.

Well obviously you can write you exam number on the inside page, but that's it.

Glinda!

I looking from some help with tort question as I think losing the plot at this stage!

Just looking at Q2 of the March 14 paper about Tom's fallen wall and Jerry falling over a brick on the footpath. Im assuming from the last line of the question that the problem relates to causation as it asks to advise Tom as to whether or not he is the cause of any potential tort action by Jerry? Reason I ask is that the city colleges lecture says it concerns occupiers liability and trespass/nuisance/rylands?

Also would be very grateful if anyone could tell me what their conclusion to this question would be as I am at a loss!

Thanks in advance!

Lawstudent007

Ms.Cat wrote: »

Hi all, in relation to question 2 on the March 2014 Paper (Grainne, a widow, legislation that says that under Social Welfare Act anyone who is a widow is entitled to payment at Minister's discretion...but is then refused payment without reasons given) is a discussion of whether she can be considered a family and the 'marital family/non -marital families' discrimination in any way relevant? Or does the question just engage SOP, non delegation, fair procedures issues, given that the legislation specifically refers to widows?

I answered that question on SOP - art15 and also threw in fair procedures re haughey. Also chucked in art42 saying that she shouldn't be paying for education anyway as state must provide free primary education.

Legalgrad

Glinda! wrote: »

I looking from some help with tort question as I think losing the plot at this stage!

Just looking at Q2 of the March 14 paper about Tom's fallen wall and Jerry falling over a brick on the footpath. Im assuming from the last line of the question that the problem relates to causation as it asks to advise Tom as to whether or not he is the cause of any potential tort action by Jerry? Reason I ask is that the city c
olleges lecture says it concerns occupiers liability and trespass/nuisance/rylands?

Also would be very grateful if anyone could tell me what their conclusion to this question would be as I am at a loss!

Thanks in advance!

Hey, sorry I'cant be of any real help as I'mm a loss on where to start with that q but have you got the link to the City Colleges Review Lecture for Tort?

Glinda!

Legalgrad wrote: »

Hey, sorry I'cant be of any real help as I'mm a loss on where to start with that q but have you got the link to the City Colleges Review Lecture for Tort?

I watched it live so its a different link you need but if you email city colleges they will send you the link if you list the subjects you require

magshal

Hi,
Does anyone have sample answers from any of the revision courses for the October 2013 Property paper?!

Eveline14

Legalgrad wrote: »

Hey, sorry I'cant be of any real help as I'mm a loss on where to start with that q but have you got the link to the City Colleges Review Lecture for Tort?

Here's Tort and Equity for anyone who wants it.
FE1 REVIEW - Tort 31 March
http://citycolleges.adobeconnect.com/p55smur09nz/

FE1 REVIEW - Equity 31 March
http://citycolleges.adobeconnect.com/p6vh1ao20yb/

RossLynch33

Glinda! wrote: »

I looking from some help with tort question as I think losing the plot at this stage!

Just looking at Q2 of the March 14 paper about Tom's fallen wall and Jerry falling over a brick on the footpath. Im assuming from the last line of the question that the problem relates to causation as it asks to advise Tom as to whether or not he is the cause of any potential tort action by Jerry? Reason I ask is that the city colleges lecture says it concerns occupiers liability and trespass/nuisance/rylands?

Also would be very grateful if anyone could tell me what their conclusion to this question would be as I am at a loss!

Thanks in advance!

I have since emailed the lecturer myself and he said that it's a very poorly drafted question but that it is on Causation

I really do despise the way this examiner asks a causation question by predominantly phrasing it as a Private Nuisance or Rylands v Fletcher Q

Redo91

Just a quick question for anyone with the 2013 Independent Colleges manual on Criminal Law. I have noticed in a few chapters that there are paragraphs missing. In the chapter on Sexual Offences there is a "Reader Note" at the end of the section on vitiated consent which says that paragraphs 7-10 to 7-18 are deleted. As a result the notes I have on consent aren't as substantial as I would like. At the end of the chapter there is a list of the key cases and Kaitamaki v R is listed yet there is no mention of it in the chapter. In the chapter on Homicide, there is a significant chunk of the section on Murder missing (paras 5-05 to 5-18). It means I have less than a page of notes and although manslaughter tends to come up much more often than murder, if a question was to come up on murder I don't think I have enough material on it to answer a question. Basically I am just wondering if anybody else has with the same manual has noticed this?

Also for those of you doing Contract do you know where I would be able pick up a copy of the 1980 Act (either on-line or better still in Galway)? I picked up the 1893 Act in the bookshop in NUIG but they are saying they won't have the 1980 Act in until next week and I need it by Tuesday.

southcounty

FE1 student wrote: »

1. Critically evaluate the legislative protection afforded to spouses and same sex couples in relation to family property in Ireland. Support your answer with reference to appropriate authority.

Changed in October 2013 to problem question re married couple and on the March 14 paper she only asked same sex. Which apparently only means civil partners and not cohabitants.

2. Easement came up in March 14 as an essay and in October as a problem question.

Hope that helps.

That's a great help...thanks very much