Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Can anyone please clarify :
Lindsay v mid western Health board
Did res ipsa loquitor apply in this case ? And is it ' Lindsay or Lyndsay the correct spelling?
My notes says the doctrine applied , city night before notes said it didn't apply...
Someone please help
Don't worry about spelling. They did raise res ipsa but they said that as they could show they had used all reas care the def had rebutted the inference and basically they didn't apply the hanrahan extra criteria and also the fact that the ultimate causal fault wasn't est'd didn't matter as they had shown they used all reas care.
Sory that may not make sense.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Daryl Strawberry wrote: »For anyone who has sat these before,
I was just wondering, for cases is it preferable to underline the name of the case / write in red pen ?
Also, is it better if your answer is divided into headlined sections, and if so, how specific should the divisions be?
In other words...
That sounds like a waste of precious time to me. They know the cases involved, they'll find 'em!
As for your question on sections, I'm approaching the answers like I did my undergrad exams. Use the ILAC method (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion). I would never have sectioned off an answer in college, but maybe you could. I feel like it would interrupt the flow of the answer, though, which is often meant to read like advice to a client..
Maybe someone more experienced will tell me I'm completely wrong, though!0 -
-
-
-
-
Someone sent me pics of the tort paper this morning and I know post mortems are pointless but it seems to have been
1) straightforward essay on occupiers liability
2) straightforward problem on passing off
3) essay on survival of actions on death (identical repeat of the April paper!)
4) straightforward problem on trespass against the person with a sport/soccer theme
5) a curious looking problem on general negligence and control of children. Anyone have any thoughts?
6) semi-decent problem on causation and remoteness but with a lot of irrelevant padding at the start?
7) essay on limitation periods
8) I honestly have no clue what this one is about. Deceit and trespass to goods?
Apparently it was vicarious liability I had started in on vicarious and had a page written and got thought I got it wrong and crossed it off then started on general negligence so upset !! So I won't get a mark for it .. It's my 5th question
Does anyone one if I am say very close to passing - would the examiner or if I appeal the external examiner would checked out my crossed off work? 0 -
Apparently it was vicarious liability I had started in on vicarious and had a page written and got thought I got it wrong and crossed it off then started on general negligence so upset !! So I won't get a mark for it .. It's my 5th question
Does anyone one if I am say very close to passing - would the examiner or if I appeal the external examiner would checked out my crossed off work?
My friend had this and got dragged up on recheck though he failed all four was brought up in two exams by a good bit think criminal and property cant recall amd not just by a %, so well worth a try. Its possible pass with four they may not look at crossed out section though as it goes to root of identifying the issue. I'd say head up and move on to next one.
I need to get off here now and work.0 -
My friend had this and got dragged up on recheck though he failed all four was brought up in two exams by a good bit think criminal and property cant recall amd not just by a %, so well worth a try. Its possible pass with four they may not look at crossed out section though as it goes to root of identifying the issue. I'd say head up and move on to next one.
I need to get off here now and work.
I really hope so I had two good questions , 2 ok questions and messed up the last one .. Can't believe I doubted myself .. I am just hoping given that it's my last question and I made an honest mistake and whatever I wrote the the crossed off section would defo get me a few marks , if I was close maybe there will check my crossed off work and pass me
Thanks for the reply! Gonna try and not get too wound up0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I really hope so I had two good questions , 2 ok questions and messed up the last one .. Can't believe I doubted myself .. I am just hoping given that it's my last question and I made an honest mistake and whatever I wrote the the crossed off section would defo get me a few marks , if I was close maybe there will check my crossed off work and pass me
Thanks for the reply! Gonna try and not get too wound up
Yea just put it behind you now. Most people leave worst q til last anyway and due to time constraints etc last question almost always c**p at least you didn't do it as your first question and spend ages at it. Good luck in next one!0 -
-
Yea just put it behind you now. Most people leave worst q til last anyway and due to time constraints etc last question almost always c**p at least you didn't do it as your first question and spend ages at it. Good luck in next one!
Thank you so much that's really nice of you for the comforting message , best of luck tomorrow for company 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I very, very much doubt that. Where was the VL connection? Seems to me like general negligence with an element of control over children (eg Curley v Mannion) - albeit very very threadbare.
I can't see how you could stretch it to vicarious liability because other than Moynihan v Moynihan you'd literally have nothing to say
Maybe I'm wrong!
And agreed - most peoples last question is total rubbish. If you have 4 relatively solid answers and the 5th one sketch then you should be fine
Where was the VL connection?!? The question specifically mentioned advising the shop as to their negligence for their employee's actions (i.e. vicarious liability)
So sickened I chose not to do passing off, looked like a steady enough question on it!0 -
Advertisement
-
Daryl Strawberry wrote: »Where was the VL connection?!? The question specifically mentioned advising the shop as to their negligence for their employee's actions (i.e. vicarious liability)
So sickened I chose not to do passing off, looked like a steady enough question on it!
King Ian is muddling Q8 and Q5.
Q8 was vl well as far as I can gather.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement