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

Inmyownworld

Redo91 wrote: »

Just a quick question. In criminal today I was tight for time so I was writing until the very end. Never got a chance to right the numbers of the questions I did on the cover. I assume this isn't a big deal

I sat 4 in Oct and never even realised you were supposed to write it on the front, only failed the one!

Redo91

Inmyownworld wrote: »

I sat 4 in Oct and never even realised you were supposed to write it on the front, only failed the one!

Cheers. Can't imagine you lose any marks for not doing it anyhow.

MissM89

kiwi33 wrote: »

Does anybody else feel they have whip-lash going between the decisions for the case law regarding mandatory interlocutory injuntions and whether its a fair question to be tried or a higher standard? Holy ****!

Hi there! Yes agree with you on the injunctions front, such a painful topic to study!! Just wondering what injunctions you are looking at? Do you think there is any way she would throw up Mareva again - just to be evil??!

MJW5

Can anyone tell me what came up in the criminal exam please?

LawCQ91

MJW5 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what came up in the criminal exam please?

MJW5 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what came up in the criminal exam please?

- what is a crime

- sexual offence , 4 part .. Issues covered were , impersonating , consent, minor age 11 (capacity) mentally impaired, defilement of child under 15

- law on omission( I think anyway for the most part) murder and manslaughter

- essay on incitement

- court of criminal appeal and Special criminal court , kind of phrased in a way that's like mini problem questions

- essay on presumption of innocence

I can't remember what the two problem questions was about exactly or which was which ..

But I have identified, assault charges, endangerment, criminal damage( endanger life + fire ) harassment, false imprisonment, threatening to kill.

I could have misidentified issues or missed issues , don't know

defence for the problem questions - automatism mostly ( insulin ) ( possibly insanity - mentioned it in one line ) , intoxication.


Hope I did enough to pass I answered 5 questions so hopefully I have a chance

kiwi33

MissM89 wrote: »

Hi there! Yes agree with you on the injunctions front, such a painful topic to study!! Just wondering what injunctions you are looking at? Do you think there is any way she would throw up Mareva again - just to be evil??!

I really really hope not because I'm concentrating on mandatory interlocutory and quia timet.. Have done out half arsed notes for Mareva just in case but i really hope not. I do think it would be evil if she put them up again so fingers crossed.

kiwi33

Can anyone tell me how Carroll v Dublin Bus and Ahmed v HSE fit into Specific Performance in relation to contracts for personal services?? If we get a essay question based on how courts have dealt with specific performance of contracts for personal services, Would the following be the best way to approach it,

Traditionally against it because of supervisor nature: Williamson ltd v Lukey and Muholland and Ryan v Mutual Tontine,
However Posner v Lewis set out a serious of questions of when it would be allowed.

Contracts for builder and repairs: Strict Criteria set out in Wolverhampton Corporation v Emmons, RushBrooke v O'Sullivan not granted because it did not fall under this category,

Employment Contracts... 1971 in England and 1985 in Ireland virtually unchallenged until Giles v Morris in England and mould broken in Hill v C.A Parsons. First in this jurisdiction in Fennelly v Assicuraziono Generalli... today Carroll v Dublin Bus and Ahmed v HSE.

Does that sound like I'm going in the right way for answering a question like that? Would you need to mention obligation to carry on in business and mention Argyll Stores and Wanze properties or would that be drifting away from what is specifically being asked..

Im kind of confused as to how Lumeny v Wagner and Warner Brothers v Nelson tie into this because it said injunctions where given but no specific performance?

Any ideas or clarification on this would be great

Milkypops

No free movements.....what the feck eu??

Legalgrad

How did people find EU?
Thought some of the questions were very awkwardly worded particularly the problem questions! And no free movements????

Inmyownworld

Thought it was awful! Very awkwardly asked questions. Had to re read sentences 3/4 times to see what it was they were even asking. No free movements really f***d it up for me, one more decent Q and I'd say I could have passed but this will definitely be a fail!

Hoped this would be the end of these exams! 😞

missindigo123

kiwi33 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how Carroll v Dublin Bus and Ahmed v HSE fit into Specific Performance in relation to contracts for personal services?? If we get a essay question based on how courts have dealt with specific performance of contracts for personal services, Would the following be the best way to approach it,

Traditionally against it because of supervisor nature: Williamson ltd v Lukey and Muholland and Ryan v Mutual Tontine,
However Posner v Lewis set out a serious of questions of when it would be allowed.

Contracts for builder and repairs: Strict Criteria set out in Wolverhampton Corporation v Emmons, RushBrooke v O'Sullivan not granted because it did not fall under this category,

Employment Contracts... 1971 in England and 1985 in Ireland virtually unchallenged until Giles v Morris in England and mould broken in Hill v C.A Parsons. First in this jurisdiction in Fennelly v Assicuraziono Generalli... today Carroll v Dublin Bus and Ahmed v HSE.

Does that sound like I'm going in the right way for answering a question like that? Would you need to mention obligation to carry on in business and mention Argyll Stores and Wanze properties or would that be drifting away from what is specifically being asked..

Im kind of confused as to how Lumeny v Wagner and Warner Brothers v Nelson tie into this because it said injunctions where given but no specific performance?

Any ideas or clarification on this would be great

It sounds good, I would only mention Agryll if you are planning to discuss the Posner principles in detail; In Posner, Court said that they will consider the hardship to the parties if SP awarded - So you could mention the case there... The distinction between Agryll and Wanze, Agryll was running at a loss but Wanze wasn't...!

Lumney and Warner - the Courts will only enforce a "negitive obligation" but not a positive one - so it will prevent Betty davis breaching her agreement to not take up work in another studio but it wont compel her to stay working for the Plaintiff... The negitive obligation will not be enforced where it will cause her to "lie idle" or effectively be unemployed which the court felt it wouldnt as she could take up other work, just not actiing in a studio, weird decision...
It was said to be "extremely unrealistic" decision in the cas of Warren V Mendy where the court said that the court shouldnt enforce negitive obligations because they are essentially compelling the servant to work for the same master...compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case... shouldnt be granted where the relationship has broken down.... servants trust in his mater may have been betrayed..."
The approach in Warren V Mendy is very lenient and "undermines contract law principles" but it could be said that the decisions are restricted to cases where there is a special skill / talent...

As For the CIE case, I think the different was the employer was trying to sack the employee??Cant remember!
Hope that helps, Im only doing it now so ill let u know If I spot a mistake or anything useful!

kiwi33

missindigo123 wrote: »

It sounds good, I would only mention Agryll if you are planning to discuss the Posner principles in detail; In Posner, Court said that they will consider the hardship to the parties if SP awarded - So you could mention the case there... The distinction between Agryll and Wanze, Agryll was running at a loss but Wanze wasn't...!

Lumney and Warner - the Courts will only enforce a "negitive obligation" but not a positive one - so it will prevent Betty davis breaching her agreement to not take up work in another studio but it wont compel her to stay working for the Plaintiff... The negitive obligation will not be enforced where it will cause her to "lie idle" or effectively be unemployed which the court felt it wouldnt as she could take up other work, just not actiing in a studio, weird decision...
It was said to be "extremely unrealistic" decision in the cas of Warren V Mendy where the court said that the court shouldnt enforce negitive obligations because they are essentially compelling the servant to work for the same master...compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case... shouldnt be granted where the relationship has broken down.... servants trust in his mater may have been betrayed..."
The approach in Warren V Mendy is very lenient and "undermines contract law principles" but it could be said that the decisions are restricted to cases where there is a special skill / talent...

As For the CIE case, I think the different was the employer was trying to sack the employee??Cant remember!
Hope that helps, Im only doing it now so ill let u know If I spot a mistake or anything useful!

Thanks!! It all gets very confusing when learning it together, I find my self getting muddled up in Injunctions and this. There is so much back and forth between decisions to sometimes it wrecks my head! Hopefully we'll get through it okay!

missindigo123

kiwi33 wrote: »

Thanks!! It all gets very confusing when learning it together, I find my self getting muddled up in Injunctions and this. There is so much back and forth between decisions to sometimes it wrecks my head! Hopefully we'll get through it okay!

yeah hopefully! are u going to look at land and sp too or just this?

kiwi33

missindigo123 wrote: »

yeah hopefully! are u going to look at land and sp too or just this?

I will look at land yeah, you know that problem question that has come up a few times similar to the facts in Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Dublin Land Securities where you have to see how one party can argue rectification and the other specific performance.. Just doing a bit of rectification now to cover that. It's fairly straight forward really. The examiner said people always leave out the limited exceptions to unilateral mistake as well so I'm gonna make sure I know that. It also looks at hardship and impecuniosity as a defence to Specific Performance as well so I'll look at the defences too

Robbo

Legalgrad wrote: »

How did people find EU?
Thought some of the questions were very awkwardly worded particularly the problem questions! And no free movements????

Inmyownworld wrote: »

Thought it was awful! Very awkwardly asked questions. Had to re read sentences 3/4 times to see what it was they were even asking. No free movements really f***d it up for me, one more decent Q and I'd say I could have passed but this will definitely be a fail!

Hoped this would be the end of these exams! 😞

In particular, the Direct Effect question was a structural mess. No mention of the timelines for transposition, when precisely the farm was built, whether all or part of the Directive had been transposed...all of which meaning you have to throw the kitchen sink at the answer.

Also, no Citizenship/FMOP/FMOG, dafuq?

2 new Casenotes to add to the list alongside the usual classics. Also worth noting was the second appearance of Kadi 2, replacing the very frequent Kadi 1.

MissM89

kiwi33 wrote: »

I will look at land yeah, you know that problem question that has come up a few times similar to the facts in Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Dublin Land Securities where you have to see how one party can argue rectification and the other specific performance.. Just doing a bit of rectification now to cover that. It's fairly straight forward really. The examiner said people always leave out the limited exceptions to unilateral mistake as well so I'm gonna make sure I know that. It also looks at hardship and impecuniosity as a defence to Specific Performance as well so I'll look at the defences too

Do you mind sharing what the limited exceptions are to unilateral mistake?!

kiwi33

MissM89 wrote: »

Do you mind sharing what the limited exceptions are to unilateral mistake?!

Yeah no problem, It's easy to remember

It was in Irish Assurances Ltd v Dublin Land Securites, Keane J adopted the approach in Thomas Bates and Sons v Wyndham where Buckley LJ stated what was necessary to establish a claim for rectification for unilateral mistake was:
A One party wrongly thought the document included or excluded a term,
B The other party was aware of the mistake
C Other party did not draw attention to the mistake
D The mistake was calculated to benefit the other party

The usual auld tripe!!

sophya

kiwi33 wrote: »

Yeah no problem, It's easy to remember

It was in Irish Assurances Ltd v Dublin Land Securites, Keane J adopted the approach in Thomas Bates and Sons v Wyndham where Buckley LJ stated what was necessary to establish a claim for rectification for unilateral mistake was:
A One party wrongly thought the document included or excluded a term,
B The other party was aware of the mistake
C Other party did not draw attention to the mistake
D The mistake was calculated to benefit the other party

The usual auld tripe!!

Phew I was flipping through my manual frantically looking for exceptions. I've drilled that into my head for as the test/conditions for granting rectification on unilateral mistake.

Inmyownworld

Charitable trusts/Cy pres
Satisfaction/advancement/rule in strong v bird
Quistclose trusts
Constructive trusts/fiduciary duty of strangers
Undue influence
Trusteeship
Estoppel
Donatia mortis causa
Injunctions - interlocutory, mandatory, quia timet and a little on anton pillar orders
3 certainties

That HAS to be enough....

Leaving out secret trusts and specific performance....

safc_pete

Inmyownworld wrote: »

Charitable trusts/Cy pres
Satisfaction/advancement/rule in strong v bird
Quistclose trusts
Constructive trusts/fiduciary duty of strangers
Undue influence
Trusteeship
Estoppel
Donatia mortis causa
Injunctions - interlocutory, mandatory, quia timet and a little on anton pillar orders
3 certainties

That HAS to be enough....

Leaving out secret trusts and specific performance....

I have:

Interlocutory Injs
Anton Piller
Quia Timet
Specific Performance
Undue Influence
Quistclose Trusts
Resulting Trusts
Charitable Trusts
Satisfaction
Trusteeship
Satisfaction

Leaving out Mareva, Rule in Strong v Bird and 3 Certainties.

I can do no more.

Inmyownworld

safc_pete wrote: »

I have:

Interlocutory Injs
Anton Piller
Quia Timet
Specific Performance
Undue Influence
Quistclose Trusts
Resulting Trusts
Charitable Trusts
Satisfaction
Trusteeship
Satisfaction

Leaving out Mareva, Rule in Strong v Bird and 3 Certainties.

I can do no more.

I keep feeling like I'm forgetting something important. Ah well, too late now if we are.

Decent overlap though! Please let this ONE go in my favour! Would be nice to have one fairly alright paper...

Finding this time round much more draining, hate equity so just can't wait to be done.

Morris_fe1s

Are damages in contract allowed for warranty and negligent mistatement

missindigo123

any tips for contract???? ekkk!!!!!! just out of that horrrriblllle equity paper!!!!!!!

safc_pete

The one part of specific performance that I didn't study is the one that comes up. Typical. Thankfully, I studied satisfaction and trusteeship last night or I would have been royally screwed. Charitable trusts, Injunctions and Undue Influence were OK though...

Inmyownworld

safc_pete wrote: »

The one part of specific performance that I didn't study is the one that comes up. Typical. Thankfully, I studied satisfaction and trusteeship last night or I would have been royally screwed. Charitable trusts, Injunctions and Undue Influence were OK though...

Yeah I found it surprisingly ok! Thank god, needed that after the disaster of yesterday. The second part of one of the problem Q's caught me a bit but I attempted it. Other than that I was happy enough! Time for beer.

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Did anyone get confused with questions 6 and 8 in equity?! thought they were a tad similar, fxxxxx me right up!

MissM89

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Did anyone get confused with questions 6 and 8 in equity?! thought they were a tad similar, fxxxxx me right up!

Ya I am with you there, I avoided them both as I really wasnt sure what 6 was, I though 8 was estoppel which I hadnt covered. Also wondering what the other problem question was if anyone could shed any light!?

Inmyownworld

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Did anyone get confused with questions 6 and 8 in equity?! thought they were a tad similar, fxxxxx me right up!

I think 8 was resulting trusts of the family home and 6 was the rule in strong v bird.

I thiiiiink!

FE1 EXAMS 2013

MissM89 wrote: »

Ya I am with you there, I avoided them both as I really wasnt sure what 6 was, I though 8 was estoppel which I hadnt covered. Also wondering what the other problem question was if anyone could shed any light!?

Sthop I got so confused at first I thought they were both estoppel and after that I just have up! Still don't even know what topics either were!

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Inmyownworld wrote: »

I think 8 was resulting trusts of the family home and 6 was the rule in strong v bird.

I thiiiiink!

What?! Are you sure? Really needed to pass that exam!