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

Fuguestate

iamanengine wrote: »

Are there clocks in the exam hall? I don't have a watch...

Yeah there are a number of them in each exam room.

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Thank you, it's nice to hear I should be some way ok, what have you prepped at the moment?

Basically I know "well"
-SLP
-Charges for the most part
-Corporate authority
-Restriction/Disq
-Liquidation I need to still learn some cases

Then it becomes a little mess still trying to learn:
-Directors duties (amount of case law)
-Shareholder protection/members
-Receivership
-Examinership
-UV.

holliek

What's the importance of Prest v Petrodel Resources for SLP?

TCPIP

From the SLP POV its actually not that important since the case was won on family law grounds and not the SLP basis its championed for but most people like it to illustrate the evasion of legal responsibility as the whole thing was a con job.

holliek

are there any areas which Courtney is known to have strong opinions on in company or the amendments from the 2014 Act? I know he welcomed the change of ultra vires, as did most. Looking to see if there's commentary or something useful to throw in about another area

Editted: or even opinions generally held by academics/CLRG?

Fuguestate

Didn't do enough. Hit a blank on case law. I'd say I mentioned, or referred to, about a dozen cases across the entire paper, including only one on the Occupier's Liability question (a topic I done a lot of work on). This is my second time trying to get the magic three. I'll have to pick myself up and carry on. Contract on Friday. Ughh.

Craobh Rua Lua

Fuguestate wrote: »

Didn't do enough. Hit a blank on case law. I'd say I mentioned, or referred to, about a dozen cases across the entire paper, including only one on the Occupier's Liability question (a topic I done a lot of work on). This is my second time trying to get the magic three. I'll have to pick myself up and carry on. Contract on Friday. Ughh.

you never know. Keep plugging away. A friend of mine passed property last time only referring to three cases throughout the paper.

Insta92

The question on Passing Off really threw me. Tried to argue they would still have right over the name since it was still displayed on their product, albeit rebranded under another name. Couldn’t decide on the point regarding packaging since they no longer used same. Advised they’d have difficulties on that aspect.

Knew my case law fairly well but application of law was messy. Would be surprised if I passed.

Fuguestate

Craobh Rua Lua wrote: »

you never know. Keep plugging away. A friend of mine passed property last time only referring to three cases throughout the paper.

Absolutely. I passed contract last year referring to 'authorities' such as the "hermaphrodite heifer" case. Miracles do happen.

In any event I'm about to hit the gym, the jacuzzi and the books in that order.

Fuguestate

Insta92 wrote: »

The question on Passing Off really threw me. Tried to argue they would still have right over the name since it was still displayed on their product, albeit rebranded under another name. Couldn’t decide on the point regarding packaging since they no longer used same. Advised they’d have difficulties on that aspect.

Knew my case law fairly well but application of law was messy. Would be surprised if I passed.

I referred to the name (rather than ignoring it) just to say that it would have likely passed to the new company during the takeover. I then focused on the "aural similarities" of both names, referring to the Botox case. Probably my best answer, but that's like saying Ringo was my favourite Beatle.

Freckley201

FYI for those sitting EU law, I just noticed that the online City College Night Before Notes still include "Co-operation" as a legislative procedure but this was repealed by the Lisbon Treaty.

http://www.citycolleges.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/EU-law-Night-Before-Notes-October-2018-2.pdf

I'd been using their notes to adjust my own so hopefully there's nothing else

user115

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Criminal
Any tips on what i should cover. Didn't really read any LRC reports seems to be referring to them in exam reports ..i can't take in reading more new info..i have yet to revise the topics starting Saturday so two full days. It isn't alot of time.

I'm the same contract Friday, criminal Monday then land Tues, seriously worried I won't have enough time it's taking me all week to learn contract finding it very tough hoping criminal and land not so bad as at least they are bit easier to learn.... Hope study is going well for you

Tony_TwoLegs

What the heck..... no straight negligence question. That's 25% of the course.

Passing Off.... the McCambridge test I assume.

Occupiers.... did anyone pursue the Recreational User once they went into Zone2? I took the stance that Duty to Visitors has been narrowed by the Byrne v Ardenheath (2017) case [as well as Van Dansel and Chambers cases] with a duty of self responsibility

Fuguestate

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

Which question was occupiers liability??

Question 5.

mariealice

How did people approach the defective products questions? I made such a mess of applying the law, Im afraid I didn't pass also with occupiers liability I said they went from being visitors to trespassers and cited Williams as my reasoning and now I think this is wrong?

nailforhammer

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

What the heck..... no straight negligence question. That's 25% of the course.

Passing Off.... the McCambridge test I assume.

Occupiers.... did anyone pursue the Recreational User once they went into Zone2? I took the stance that Duty to Visitors has been narrowed by the Byrne v Ardenheath (2017) case [as well as Van Dansel and Chambers cases] with a duty of self responsibility

I said they wouldn't be considered visitors because the consent was vitiated by their actions. I said they went beyond the limits of the occupiers consent like in Webb v Ireland and Williams v TP Wallace Construction where visitors became trespassers because of their actions.

Fuguestate

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Occupiers.... did anyone pursue the Recreational User once they went into Zone2? I took the stance that Duty to Visitors has been narrowed by the Byrne v Ardenheath (2017) case [as well as Van Dansel and Chambers cases] with a duty of self responsibility

Yeah, I followed the little bastards in there and I got no thanks for it either. Made a complete balls of it. I said they'd entered as visitors but had trespassed into the second zone, then spoke of the duty owed to foreseeable trespassers (as the lower section of the wall made a trespass likely). I then advised the client that the two brats would want to position themselves as foreseeable trespassers there for an activity (to invoke the higher standard owed in McNamara v ESB) whereas my client would want to position them as unforeseen trespassers injured by the state of the premises, which brings it under statute and would leave them free of any liability. I'd be surprised if any of that was correct. My mind is still a blank.

Whatever the correct answer, surely contributory negligence as a defence was relevant, but of course that's the one thing I didn't write down.

jewels652

Omg I only said they were visitors

Fuguestate

jewels652 wrote: »

Omg I only said they were visitors

Well I think we all agree that they were visitors, but what happened after that is the tricky part. Don't be worried about what we said. None of us are sure of what we wrote!

Tony_TwoLegs

nailforhammer wrote: »

I said they wouldn't be considered visitors because the consent was vitiated by their actions. I said they went beyond the limits of the occupiers consent like in Webb v Ireland and Williams v TP Wallace Construction where visitors became trespassers because of their actions.

They wouldn't be trespassers as their actions were recreational/area designed for I would be thinking. Same duty though so it's trivial (Weir Rodgers case).
Straying into zones not you're not meant to as visitors was the kernel of those recent cases.
It's the argument you put forward ultimately. It's not black or white always thankfully

Tony_TwoLegs

mariealice wrote: »

How did people approach the defective products questions? I made such a mess of applying the law, Im afraid I didn't pass also with occupiers liability I said they went from being visitors to trespassers and cited Williams as my reasoning and now I think this is wrong?

I did it in 2 parts: Common Law negligence with a failure to warn. And the 1991 Statutory Act then. Apply both.

vid36

Topics were predictable enough, but they always put such a slant and twist on problem questions compared to other exams.Fear I will have another trip to the Red Cow in early March.
Time to head for a few beers.

Jaspoon12

If anybody has any constitutional law grids or examiners reports they would be willing share, I would owe you the world! Really starting to freak out between Constitutional and Contract a day later

mariealice

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

I did it in 2 parts: Common Law negligence with a failure to warn. And the 1991 Statutory Act then. Apply both.

OK so I applied both, spoke about whether they had satisfied the duty to warn (then made a mess of applying it to the question, said it could be argued they didn't because of the complicated language which meant non English speaker costumers suffered ) and then spoke about the act but I made so little sense when it came to the act I said in my opinion they couldnt rely on any of the defenses under section 5.

jus_me

Can you bring your legislation in on the day of the exam? Did anyone do that today

Tony_TwoLegs

mariealice wrote: »

OK so I applied both, spoke about whether they had satisfied the duty to warn (then made a mess of applying it to the question, said it could be argued they didn't because of the complicated language which meant non English speaker costumers suffered ) and then spoke about the act but I made so little sense when it came to the act I said in my opinion they couldnt rely on any of the defenses under section 5.

I suppose the fact they should reasonably foresee Elina would be a consumer and have acted accordingly.
You mean S.6 defences? S.5 is the test whether it's defective. Only defence I could think of was later models didn't make the older one defective by virtue of better instructions

holliek

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

They never check the letter. Just ID.
No letter. No problem IMHO. Ideally know your number though.

jus_me wrote: »

Can you bring your legislation in on the day of the exam? Did anyone do that today

Yeah you can and they'll give it to you about an hour into the exam

mariealice

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

I suppose the fact they should reasonably foresee Elina would be a consumer and have acted accordingly.
You mean S.6 defences? S.5 is the test whether it's defective. Only defence I could think of was later models didn't make the older one defective by virtue of better instructions

Yes, sorry section 6 defences, my brain is addled. Ya I said none of them worried in their defence ugh so annoyed at myself, it should have been such a straightford question, on to the next one I guess.

nailforhammer

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

They wouldn't be trespassers as their actions were recreational/area designed for I would be thinking. Same duty though so it's trivial (Weir Rodgers case).
Straying into zones not you're not meant to as visitors was the kernel of those recent cases.
It's the argument you put forward ultimately. It's not black or white always thankfully

I mentioned Weir Rodgers but in that case were they not recreational users from the start? Like they didn't pay a fee and weren't invited by the occupier so they were never visitors?

mariealice wrote: »

OK so I applied both, spoke about whether they had satisfied the duty to warn (then made a mess of applying it to the question, said it could be argued they didn't because of the complicated language which meant non English speaker costumers suffered ) and then spoke about the act but I made so little sense when it came to the act I said in my opinion they couldnt rely on any of the defenses under section 5.

Yeah I said that too and then I said if the courts decided they did fail to warn then they could try to argue Elaina would have cleaned it wrong anyway like in Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores, where Dunnes wasn't liable.

Tony_TwoLegs

nailforhammer wrote: »

I mentioned Weir Rodgers but in that case were they not recreational users from the start? Like they didn't pay a fee and weren't invited by the occupier so they were never visitors?



Yeah I said that too and then I said if the courts decided they did fail to warn then they could try to argue Elaina would have cleaned it wrong anyway like in Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores, where Dunnes wasn't liable.

Weir Rodgers they were in a bar across from the cliff face. They were originally visitors. But moved. Same duty so it's no big deal. As they were acting recreationally here I just thought same principle applied.