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

Tony_TwoLegs

yournerd wrote: »

That looks like a very very strange paper!! No duty of care?

Exactly!! If you were banking on it (as you'd be firgiven) you'd be disappointed.
Defamation AGAIN.
No Prof Neg/ Neg misstatement/ No NEGLIGENCE itself pretty much lol.

SwD

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Exactly!! If you were banking on it (as you'd be firgiven) you'd be disappointed.
Defamation AGAIN.
No Prof Neg/ Neg misstatement/ No NEGLIGENCE itself pretty much lol.

A Paper fuelled with liability! I was surprised there was no question on professional negligence given the recent scandals, but no question on the DOC was a shocker.

Gunslinger92

Jaspoon12 wrote: »

I feel like I have a medicore understanding of everything i have studied and remember a good few cases (if I can just pinpoint where they come under in the exam) but I have no idea how I'll stretch what I know to 2-4 or more pages per answer

Same. Loads prepared, but identifying the issues is going to be my main problem. Looking at past papers just makes me more nervous!! Hopefully I can rely more on the essays and the case note Q.

Fuguestate

The pattern of Defamation going back through the six previous sittings has been two on, one off, two on, one off, and of course it was on the March paper as well.

Following that pattern it was due to appear today, and lo and behold it did. I thought that pattern was too obviously good to be true, but I covered it at the last minute and put in a decent enough answer. Alas it wasn't enough as I fluffed my lines elsewhere. But it's a lesson learned. If I see anything ever again that even remotely resembles a pattern I'm gonna gamble on it.

Jaspoon12

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Same. Loads prepared, but identifying the issues is going to be my main problem. Looking at past papers just makes me more nervous!! Hopefully I can rely more on the essays and the case note Q.

I thought i was the only one lol and sample answers with 6-8 pages.... Take a miracle! Good luck though, may the odds be ever in our favour

yournerd

Fuguestate wrote: »

The pattern of Defamation going back through the six previous sittings has been two on, one off, two on, one off, and of course it was on the March paper as well.

Following that pattern it was due to appear today, and lo and behold it did. I thought that pattern was too obviously good to be true, but I covered it at the last minute and put in a decent enough answer. Alas it wasn't enough as I fluffed my lines elsewhere. But it's a lesson learned. If I see anything ever again that even remotely resembles a pattern I'm gonna gamble on it.

So any for contract?:P

Fuguestate

SwD wrote: »

A Paper fuelled with liability! I was surprised there was no question on professional negligence given the recent scandals, but no question on the DOC was a shocker.

The thing about DoC and negligence is that it's in there everywhere. The City Colleges grid is very instructive in that regard. It highlights every topic where it was a factor and not just a specific question. I expect their grid next year will be the same.

Unfortunately for me I treat topics as completely independent of each other and that seems to be fatal in tort. The posters above that raised the Occupier's Liability issue within the Trespass to Person question is one such example. I lack that level of awareness and I tip my hat to those that do have it. Those types of candidates distinguish themselves from the rest.

Fuguestate

yournerd wrote: »

So any for contract?:P

I passed contract last year by covering almost all of the syllabus. Haven't looked at a grid this year but I'm guessing I didn't spot a pattern back then! In any event it's always a gamble. Trying to spot patterns is a fool's errand, notwithstanding that it seemed to work out today.

luckyman

Covering most things in Company but my memory is awful and I don't know how I will memorise all this stuff. It's a nightmare.

Fuguestate

Insta92 wrote: »

Discussed statements which have defamatory effect but how society’s views change with time when referring to case law.

I did something similar at one point. I mentioned the Reynolds case and how being labelled 'gay' in 2018 may not be considered defamatory, in fact as a matter of policy the Court may not hold it to be. That decision may have been decided similarly today, but only because it suggested that the Plaintiff was being disingenuous/dishonest about his true sexuality, rather then because being labelled gay impugned his character.

I put down a decent enough answer, but I think I might have been answering a question that was in my head, not the one on the page.

iamanengine

The end of the offer and acceptance chapter in my manual has a section on certainty of terms. I don't see how this is relevant to O+A at all...anyone?

veronymus

Fuguestate wrote: »

The thing about DoC and negligence is that it's in there everywhere. The City Colleges grid is very instructive in that regard. It highlights every topic where it was a factor and not just a specific question. I expect their grid next year will be the same.

Unfortunately for me I treat topics as completely independent of each other and that seems to be fatal in tort. The posters above that raised the Occupier's Liability issue within the Trespass to Person question is one such example. I lack that level of awareness and I tip my hat to those that do have it. Those types of candidates distinguish themselves from the rest.

I think you are probably a little harsh on yourself. And in fact I would say that its probably not a good thing to spend too much time exploring issues that you are not asked to discuss. I noticed on today's paper that the examiner was quite specific in what he expected to be addressed. Doing any more may say to him that you've ignored what was asked.

Saying that, in relation to the trespass question, I did mention the fact that Laura was a trespasser and this could potentially be viewed as an act of provocation which might go to contributory negligence and thus cases such as Gammel v Doyle and Shaughnessy v Nohilly might be relevant.

Craobh Rua Lua

Fuguestate wrote: »

The thing about DoC and negligence is that it's in there everywhere. The City Colleges grid is very instructive in that regard. It highlights every topic where it was a factor and not just a specific question. I expect their grid next year will be the same.

Unfortunately for me I treat topics as completely independent of each other and that seems to be fatal in tort. The posters above that raised the Occupier's Liability issue within the Trespass to Person question is one such example. I lack that level of awareness and I tip my hat to those that do have it. Those types of candidates distinguish themselves from the rest.

I wouldn’t worry about it. The question specifically asked for intentional torts so occupier’s liability is irrelevant, in any event.

Vegetarian2017

sapphire309 wrote:

Due to time restrictions, I need to cut 1 of the following: discharge, exemption/exclusion clauses, or misrepresentation. Can anyone advise me on which is safest to leave out?

I would say exemption/exclusion. Exemption cameup in problem and exclusion as an essay. Misrep is more common as is discharge unless there were tips that would be my take on it.

Freckley201

Hey all,

If anyone has any 2017 EU law spring/autumn sample answers I have earlier ones I can share.

Lost on Q6 2017 Autumn where there's a charge added to Irish wine, examiner reports seem to indicate it would come under Art 30 as a CEE but the question doesn't mention crossing of a border, national or domestic. Anyone covered that one yet? I could just be going loopy at this stage!

sapphire309

Can we drop legislation into Red Cow any time between 9-5, or does it have to be in the morning, i.e. when exams are on?

Freckley201

sapphire309 wrote: »

Can we drop legislation into Red Cow any time between 9-5, or does it have to be in the morning, i.e. when exams are on?

Between 9-1pm I believe

jus_me

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

I would say exemption/exclusion. Exemption cameup in problem and exclusion as an essay. Misrep is more common as is discharge unless there were tips that would be my take on it.

Can anyone tell me a quick difference between exemption and exclusion clauses in a panic

iamanengine

jus_me wrote: »

Can anyone tell me a quick difference between exemption and exclusion clauses in a panic

My understanding is that exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are both types of exemption clauses.

Vegetarian2017

iamanengine wrote:

My understanding is that exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are both types of exemption clauses.

Me too. Also my previous text should have said they came up in they came up in the last sitting.

bigtophat13

Just making sure, we're allowed to have legislation tabbed right? Will be dropping my companies act in in the morning and if I don't get it an hour In I'll be in a bad way

kasey0123

Ok so i was covering predictable enough topics for contract but only after noticing question from 2014, 2015 where she has mixed the likes of undue influence with offer & acceptance... and illegal contracts with misrep

Bit late in the day but are we better off knowing a bit about everything... or the obvious topics in depth.. starting to worry now it’s too late,

Was banking on offer, acceptance, consideration and estoppel. Consumer protection. Exemption clauses, terms and misrep, outline knowledge on mistake.... and leaving it there

Any advice from someone who’s passed contract before or tips

gfettig

So, following the apparent trend into ever more discrete, full question topics in Equity, has anyone come across anything more obscure than Quistclose...possibly something that was last pleaded in the 1600s or so, that might be the next oddball 1 out of 8?

Vegetarian2017

How long do people give themselves for learning off the subject. Like when it comes to week of exams say you haven't looked at subject in 1.5 and you have two days to learn. I'm in a panic i feel like I'm starting from scratch and there is so much 0_0 ... i remember someone saying to me a year ago 2 hours per topic...but when you have 13 to15 two days isnt alot.

TCPIP

Hello yes why are there people outside my room drilling?

jazzypatty89

TCPIP wrote: »

Hello yes why are there people outside my room drilling?

They drilled during the entire exam yesterday. Thought I was going to lose my mind! Bring in ear plugs if you have them!

TCPIP

Oh... Great.

lawless11

Guess who's bus is half an hour late? What's the room for company please?

MagicThree18

kasey0123 wrote: »

Ok so i was covering predictable enough topics for contract but only after noticing question from 2014, 2015 where she has mixed the likes of undue influence with offer & acceptance... and illegal contracts with misrep

Bit late in the day but are we better off knowing a bit about everything... or the obvious topics in depth.. starting to worry now it’s too late,

Was banking on offer, acceptance, consideration and estoppel. Consumer protection. Exemption clauses, terms and misrep, outline knowledge on mistake.... and leaving it there

Any advice from someone who’s passed contract before or tips

Passed it last year (although I failed to land the full three required). You look a little light, to be quite frank.

I'd always study both misrep/mistake together because it's usually either/or. By doing both you're going from a 50/50 chance to having an almost guaranteed question.

I'd also strongly recommend covering discharge (particularly frustration) and remedies (particularly damages).

MagicThree18

lawless11 wrote: »

Guess who's bus is half an hour late? What's the room for company please?

It will depend on your exam number. The lists of candidate numbers/rooms is in the front lobby.