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

Vegetarian2017

Property
Should we read the full law reform on adverse possession or would simply a paragraph or two on it suffice

Gunslinger92

yournerd wrote: »

Anyone whose passed contract

What was/is your strategy?

Make sure you answer 5. Contract was my first ever fe1 and I blanked. Was reading questions thinking "I know this, I know I know what to write but it just won't come into my head"
Answered them anyway (well, 4.5 questions) and still passed! The legislation saved me as I was able to do a consumer protection question. Just make sure you stay put for the full 3 hours, stuff comes back to you

Gunslinger92

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Property
Should we read the full law reform on adverse possession or would simply a paragraph or two on it suffice

I'm sure the report would go through the general law on AP which could be useful but absolutely is not necessary to read it all, mentioning it in passing would be plenty I reckon

Bashbag89

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

The nerves are well and truly kicking in but trying to remain calm then everytime i come on here there are new cases being mentioned on topics i think i know;(

There is always going to be cases that you don't know sure there are thousands for most topics. Just make sure you have the basic theory and the main cases learned that hit as many areas of that particular topic as possible.

yournerd

just send me ur email address by PM if you need anything

lawlad101

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Property
Should we read the full law reform on adverse possession or would simply a paragraph or two on it suffice

It will definitely help, but I doubt it's fully necessary.

azMark09

Hi

Does anyone have the grids for anything except Tort, EU and Constitutional they can send me.

I'm buying popular notes online I can share in return.

Thanks

nuac

Mod
CrazyDogLady 21 and azMark09

Congrats on your enterprise
Meanwhile please confirm that there are no copyright or similar issues with the material concerned
Is copyright reserved on any of these items?

Tony_TwoLegs

nuac wrote: »

Mod
CrazyDogLady 21 and azMark09

Congrats on your enterprise
Meanwhile please confirm that there are no copyright or similar issues with the material concerned
Is copyright reserved on any of these items?

Mod, copyright is an immediate right. You don't need to reserve it, nor declare it. It vests with the author automatically.
(See.... my Masters wasn't wasted entirely)

Pollylou75

Does anyone have the examiners report on contract from March 18, I have the examiners report on the property paper from March 18 if anyone wants a copy

bigtophat13

holliek wrote: »

I'm doing company and have left out fraudulent and reckless trading as it never really appears.. Is it tipped to come up this year?

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

I'd have to agree, wouldn't be at all surprised if R&D and transfer didn't come up. I reckon Receivership, Authority, Liquidation, potentially with Reckless and Fraudulent Trading coming up.

With regards the reform Q, I'd imagine we'll see it in some form, if not the trusty '5 examples', then one of the variations on the October 17 paper (SAP Q and Q on differences between DACS and other Companies limited by shares).

I'd be thinking the same with regards to ROT very much being due a run.

Here's hoping I'm in some way right anyway!

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

It's got to come up sometime

The Idea of Reckless and Fraudulent and ROT being on their own terrifies me.

I think he'll have to have one on:

-Directors Duties
-SLP
-Shareholder rights

then after that:
-I don't think that liquidation wasn't up last exam and it nearly always is
-Receivership and Examinership were not up
-Authority and UV weren't up in a long time.

If I'm going in with those 6 and enough on floating charges and the 2 step registration that I could have a go at the 5 changes question I'd surely be ok? Right?

jazzypatty89

I have updated my tort grid (no longer has dots), PM me your email if you need one!

Fuguestate

For Product Liability, are people just covering the act? Have negligence and breach of contract ever arose?

Vegetarian2017

How much time do you guys put by for learning. So like you understand the concepts well have an idea as in having dis the notes. would three full days be enough to learn off the subject i.e contract n criminal. It feels like your starting from scratch yet so little time.

Frances456

Fuguestate wrote: »

For Product Liability, are people just covering the act? Have negligence and breach of contract ever arose?

You usually have to discuss negligence and the act unless the question states otherwise

iamanengine

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

How much time do you guys put by for learning. So like you understand the concepts well have an idea as in having dis the notes. would three full days be enough to learn off the subject i.e contract n criminal. It feels like your starting from scratch yet so little time.

That's pretty much what I'm doing, have all my notes done and understand everything well, but only starting to cram for Tort now i.e. shoving cases into my brain.

iamanengine

Does anyone know if UCC/Aviva appealed the Court of Appeal decision against ESB? Only thing I can find is that they were considering it.

TCPIP

No, they didn't. Dopes...

Pyggg

Is there a time limit of when you have to drop your legislation in the day before ?

iamanengine

Does anyone have sample answers for Tort from 2016 on? I have only up to 2015. I have loads of stuff for other subjects if any kind soul would be willing to share/swap.

Bashbag89

Good article for recent cases re Occupiers liability.

https://www.rdj.ie/insights/occupiers-liability--a-shift-in-favour-of-occupiers-?s=0.89608153411

bigtophat13

With regards to the legislation, I don't know how strict they are. Does anyone know if markings on the front indicating its from a college library will be any issue or is it fine as long as there's no writing on the actual book pages?

Ngannou54

Any insight into the likelihood of unenumerated rights coming up as an essay question for Constitutional?

TCPIP

I'd say there'll be one or two of them mentioned anyway.

Fuguestate

What's the pass/fail rate for tort?

nailforhammer

iamanengine wrote: »

Does anyone know if UCC/Aviva appealed the Court of Appeal decision against ESB? Only thing I can find is that they were considering it.

I hadn't heard of this case till now and I don't know if I'll have time to read the whole judgment before the exam. Can anyone give a brief summary of why it's important?

From a quick skim through it, it seems to be about the law of negligence and nuisance? But it doesn't seem like a nuisance case at all. On first thought it looks more like a Rylands v Fletcher case but ESB didn't cause the water damage so it's not R v F as it would be an omission rather than an action?

I'm a bit confused, would be great if someone could help me out?

Becks63976

Tort:
Negligence
Pure economic loss
Nuisance
Ryland v Fletcher
Trespass to person/land
Liability for defective products
Occupiers liability
Passing off
Damages

These are the subjects I'm covering but do people think this is sufficient enough.
Any guidance would be appreciated.

iamanengine

nailforhammer wrote: »

I hadn't heard of this case till now and I don't know if I'll have time to read the whole judgment before the exam. Can anyone give a brief summary of why it's important?

From a quick skim through it, it seems to be about the law of negligence and nuisance? But it doesn't seem like a nuisance case at all. On first thought it looks more like a Rylands v Fletcher case but ESB didn't cause the water damage so it's not R v F as it would be an omission rather than an action?

I'm a bit confused, would be great if someone could help me out?

It's Nuisance and falls under Material Damage - Active Conduct. Originally the HC found ESB 60% liability but this was overturned by the CoA. I'm a little bit confused by it myself but from what I can tell they didn't release 'stored' water, they merely released the overflow. No hazard could be identified for the purpose of being removed or correct as it was held they weren't negligent in the amount of water they had stored there.

nailforhammer

iamanengine wrote: »

It's Nuisance and falls under Material Damage - Active Conduct. Originally the HC found ESB 60% liability but this was overturned by the CoA. I'm a little bit confused by it myself but from what I can tell they didn't release 'stored' water, they merely released the overflow. No hazard could be identified for the purpose of being removed or correct as it was held they weren't negligent in the amount of water they had stored there.

Would it not be an argument of omission rather than active conduct?

University College Cork - National University of Ireland -v- Electricity Supply Board [2018] IECA 82:
"The damage arose from a natural event. ESB did not cause the flooding of UCC’s buildings; ESB did not release stored water from its reservoirs. The outflow was at all material times less than the quantity of water coming downriver into the Lee Scheme."

It looks like UCC wanted ESB to either have built a bigger reservoir capable of storing more water or to have released water to make space before the storm happened and argued that failure to do so was an omission. But the court held that ESB had no duty to take in water and prevent flooding.

nailforhammer

Becks63976 wrote: »

Tort:
Negligence
Pure economic loss
Nuisance
Ryland v Fletcher
Trespass to person/land
Liability for defective products
Occupiers liability
Passing off
Damages

These are the subjects I'm covering but do people think this is sufficient enough.
Any guidance would be appreciated.

Would you not do defamation or vicarious liability? I'm not doing pure economic loss but I'm doing those two topics instead. Vicarious liability is really simple.