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

graduate555

the great communicator wrote: »

It was definitely on standard of care but vicarious was relevant because the coach was an employee of the school.
It's the perfect example of a question where he writes in the exam reports "most achieved a passing grade but few excelled". So wouldn't worry about it

In one or two past papers I'm sure he mentioned that a certain problem scenario offered a wide scope to deal with a number of issues. I tried out vicarious, switched to standard of care, then threw in waiver. I feel like it was open to interpretation, I went way way over time compared to the other questions so I doubt he expected anyone to address all potential issues

Bayb12

graduate555 wrote: »

In one or two past papers I'm sure he mentioned that a certain problem scenario offered a wide scope to deal with a number of issues. I tried out vicarious, switched to standard of care, then threw in waiver. I feel like it was open to interpretation, I went way way over time compared to the other questions so I doubt he expected anyone to address all potential issues

Did anyone say it was omissions/affirmative duties?

OMGWACA

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

Definitely sit it, you'd be silly not to. What do you have to lose by sitting it? You will be amazed at what you remember and what comes back to you. Have faith in yourself! Best thing to do I find is not look at any notes for the half hour beforehand, then when you look at the paper all the info in your brain is on a level pegging, no one piece of information is more important than another. That way, you'll open the paper and everything will be much clearer for you! Relax and all your hard work over the last few weeks/months will pay off! But definitely sit it, you've paid for it, you may as well, and you will absolutely surprise yourself!

amomcnico91

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I read his exam reports and he tends to indicate that there is a high pass rate. 70% is what I've heard. Honestly, sit it. I've passed 7/8 of these exams and I can honestly say I've never felt prepared going into any of them. I'm sitting the exam tomorrow too, and I'm very nervous.  A little bit of self belief goes a long way. You have loads of time to read over everything. 
Best of Luck.

laurenburne

odwyer94 wrote: »

I think if you came out of the exam happy it's a good sign, you're probably just overanalysing it now!

I'm not sure. That was the question that confused me and I likely went down on. I originally thought it was vicarious liability but then I decided it wasnt and just talked about standard of duty instead. Probably not correct though.

Thanks a mil. I really hope I did enough to pass and I'm done with these exams. I really feel like I could come out with 47 or something silly.

I had the same the problem. I launched into vicarious liability and then I was like..this could be duty of care and standard of care...or causation so then I launched into that and had no time for conclusion so my answer was quite messy

Oh well...Im on a boosy lunch now hoping to god I'm going to blackhall in september

anosullivan

laurenburne wrote: »

Thanks a mil. I really hope I did enough to pass and I'm done with these exams. I really feel like I could come out with 47 or something silly.

I had the same the problem. I launched into vicarious liability and then I was like..this could be duty of care and standard of care...or causation so then I launched into that and had no time for conclusion so my answer was quite messy

Oh well...Im on a boosy lunch now hoping to god I'm going to blackhall in september

Ugh I'm kicking myself I didn't mention the school I just kept saying Peter and didn't even conclude. I had 3 decent questions and 2 very questionable. I found the paper very restrictive- all the essays were tough! Between that and hearing tort is marked very hard im losing faith...

Lumi77

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I feel the same and I felt confident yesterday. So much to remember...
Despite studying 8 hrs a day since November.
I'll sit and what will be will be at this stage just sick of it and have 3 more to go.
Head up and good luck

the great communicator

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I know so many people doing these exams and I haven't heard of one failing constitutional, I've heard you can come out of it confused and thinking you've failed alright but I honestly haven't heard of one fail, I even know people who've failed criminal but never constitutional or property

odwyer94

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I really think you should sit it.

I went into the exam today thinking I was 100% going to fail, wasn't even going to bother sitting it but I paid for the train up so I said I might as well. And I'm really glad I did because of the 22 topics in Tort I only had a bare knowledge of about 10 and 6 of those came up on the paper. So you really don't know how it will pan out on the day.

Plus, constitutional seems to have a reasonably high pass rate and seems like something you can bull**** on a bit, I dunno, that's what I'm hoping anyway! I'm in the exact same boat as you just more optimistic after being very lucky with the Tort exam today. Might as well sit it!

ArthurDayne

I absolutely spewed negligence / vicarious for Q1 which took me way too long. Overall 3 decent answers i though, 1 not great but got some case law and the main principles in ......and then a ridiculously bad essay on damages which I don't know if he'll even bother reading ha. Really hope I pass ...

XxMCRxBabyxX

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

As far as I know the exam is marked fairly. I haven't sat it myself but a couple of sittings ago there was a brutal paper that had people up in arms in this thread and my friend called me in absolute bits. She passed well and I think most people here did do.

You've put the work in so don't waste it now. You never know how the exam will go and you could get the perfect paper. You definitely know a lot more than you think you do

MeganC1554

Is it normal to be reluctant on how to answer past questions in constitution law?

the great communicator

MeganC1554 wrote: »

Is it normal to be reluctant on how to answer past questions in constitution law?

No there's some papers where I could answer all 8 with flourish and others where the questions might as well be in Japanese, luckily the recent ones seem clearer to me

joedubs

Anyone have an updated grid for contract? for the exams left I have one for Criminal in exchange (if needed)! Thanks

Lumi77

Could someone please advise where does the Waxy O'Connor case fit?
Can't think straight anymore.

Thank you

Lindyloo 1

Lumi77 wrote: »

Could someone please advise where does the Waxy O'Connor case fit?
Can't think straight anymore.

Thank you

Proportionality

Lumi77

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

Proportionality

Thank you very much.

Excalibur92

Hi guys,
I'm looking to get my hands on the legislation for the contract exam - the sale of good act - is it worth getting it to bring into the exam?
Also where can you get it?

Thanks

OMGWACA

Can anyone please help me with this contract qs on exemption clauses please, it's qs 2 from March 2013

The Luxury Ireland Hotel is a premier hotel in Dublin. The hotel has a
leisure centre with a swimming pool, and has various services for its
clients, including the provision· of dry . cleaning as part of the cost of the room.
Tom stays in the hotel in January 2013. When he arrives at reception
he completes and signs but does not read, a registration form. The
form includes the following clause: ·
"6. All members and guests use the leisure facilities and swimming
pool at their own risk and the club does not accept responsibility
for any harm or injury to a guest howsoever caused."
Tom uses the swimming pool that evening. However, due to the
negligence of the hotel staff the water has been treated with too high a
level of chlorine. This causes Tom's eyes to sting and he develops a
painful skin rash. He has to visit his doctor and take several days off
work. When Tom · demands compensation for his injuries, the
manager of the hotel claims that clause 6 means that the hotel is not
liable for Tom's injuries.
(a) Advise Tom on whether clause 6 will prevent him from bringing
an action against Luxury Ireland Hotel.

This may sound very dim, but I have a sample answer here I'm looking at and after all the case law which all makes perfect sense, it says
'Whether the exemption clause has been incorporated in to Tom’s contract will depend on
whether his contract was concluded prior to his signature of the
registration card. Obviously, if the contract was already concluded then
the clause will not prevent Tom from recovering for his injuries.'

Sorry, maybe my brain has just turned off but this doesn't make sense to me, would his signature not conclude the contract? Any help or advise would be much appreciated, I'm trying to cover extra last minute topics and i think it's doing me more harm than good!

Supermax1988

Excalibur92 wrote: »

Hi guys,
I'm looking to get my hands on the legislation for the contract exam - the sale of good act - is it worth getting it to bring into the exam?
Also where can you get it?

Thanks

Definitely worth getting if you plan on doing that topic. Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. Ring the OPW first thing tomorrow and order them. They'll send them straight out to you. Make sure to ask them that it will get to you before Wednesday though obviously.

smeal

OMGWACA wrote: »

Can anyone please help me with this contract qs on exemption clauses please, it's qs 2 from March 2013

The Luxury Ireland Hotel is a premier hotel in Dublin. The hotel has a
leisure centre with a swimming pool, and has various services for its
clients, including the provision· of dry . cleaning as part of the cost of the room.
Tom stays in the hotel in January 2013. When he arrives at reception
he completes and signs but does not read, a registration form. The
form includes the following clause: ·
"6. All members and guests use the leisure facilities and swimming
pool at their own risk and the club does not accept responsibility
for any harm or injury to a guest howsoever caused."
Tom uses the swimming pool that evening. However, due to the
negligence of the hotel staff the water has been treated with too high a
level of chlorine. This causes Tom's eyes to sting and he develops a
painful skin rash. He has to visit his doctor and take several days off
work. When Tom · demands compensation for his injuries, the
manager of the hotel claims that clause 6 means that the hotel is not
liable for Tom's injuries.
(a) Advise Tom on whether clause 6 will prevent him from bringing
an action against Luxury Ireland Hotel.

This may sound very dim, but I have a sample answer here I'm looking at and after all the case law which all makes perfect sense, it says
'Whether the exemption clause has been incorporated in to Tom’s contract will depend on
whether his contract was concluded prior to his signature of the
registration card. Obviously, if the contract was already concluded then
the clause will not prevent Tom from recovering for his injuries.'

Sorry, maybe my brain has just turned off but this doesn't make sense to me, would his signature not conclude the contract? Any help or advise would be much appreciated, I'm trying to cover extra last minute topics and i think it's doing me more harm than good!

Hi OMGWACA

I would also believe that the contract was concluded as it was a signed document and he is bound whether or not he read the terms (L'Estrange v Gracoub, Carroll v An Post National Lottery). The exclusion clause was also brought to his attention before he contracted and I would think that the exclusion clause is adequately incorporated into the contract? Where did you get that sample answer?

OMGWACA

smeal wrote: »

Hi OMGWACA

I would also believe that the contract was concluded as it was a signed document and he is bound whether or not he read the terms (L'Estrange v Gracoub, Carroll v An Post National Lottery). The exclusion clause was also brought to his attention before he contracted and I would think that the exclusion clause is adequately incorporated into the contract? Where did you get that sample answer?

Thanks a mill for your reply! Yeah it had mentioned L'Estrange, Parker and Interfoto Picture Library etc! The last bit just didn't make sense to me and wanted to ask in case I was missing something horrendously obvious! It's a Griffith sample answer.

amomcnico91

Do ye reckon it's safe to leave out Freedom of Assembly/Association tomorrow?

amomcnico91

Do ye reckon it's safe to leave out Freedom of Assembly/Association tomorrow?

Robbie25808

Property:

In relation to a question on intestacy, is there any point learning anything for it considering its all on the act we can bring in?
Or does anyone have any cases for it?

anosullivan

Anybody out there have a copy of the ucd lecture handout? Just want a summary of the waxy and Kerin case?? Pretty sure Blackhall is gone for me at this stage and put everything into these last 4!

graduate555

How crucial is it to know those cases from the UCD lecture? Id be way more comfortable sticking with my own materials at this stage

Yoop

amomcnico91 wrote: »

Do ye reckon it's safe to leave out Freedom of Assembly/Association tomorrow?

Definitely Assembly. I would imagine you could leave out Association too although I do remember it coming up in a comparison question with Expression a bit ago.

Redo91

Could someone clarify for me if the case of DPP v Gormley where Finnegan J refers to "colourable manoeuvres" is the same case as the joint cases of DPP v Gormley and DPP v White? My manual seems to refer to them as separate cases.

Also in the case of Parsons v Kavanagh was the defendant attempting to operate a bus service without a statutory licence as required which was a breach of the applicants right to a livelihood?

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

Could someone clarify for me if the case of DPP v Gormley where Finnegan J refers to "colourable manoeuvres" is the same case as the joint cases of DPP v Gormley and DPP v White? My manual seems to refer to them as separate cases.

Also in the case of Parsons v Kavanagh was the defendant attempting to operate a bus service without a statutory licence as required which was a breach of the applicants right to a livelihood?

As far as I know, DPP v Gormley was originally heard in 2010 by the Court of Criminal Appeal and then it was appealed to the Supreme Court with DPP v White in 2014 as a joint hearing for the sake of judicial expedience