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

Breacnua

niamh1612 wrote: »

I wish I spent as much time studying as I do tryna predict the exam, but anyway.... Is this similar to what others are concentrating on for contract? Am I missing anything people think is abslutely vital?
Offer and Acceptance
Consideration
Consumer Protetion
Remedies
Terms
Exemption Clauses
Misrep
Mistake
Estoppel

Discharge ?
After that there’s other chapters but that’s the bones of very important chapters

Sineaddh

Breacnua wrote: »

Have you you’re notes done just not learned off yet?

No nothing unfortunately! I have a manual but haven’t looked at the subject since college 2 years ago!

LeVaterIzVet

"Thank you for your enquiry. We have one Micro-Digger for sale, at a cost of €10,000 including VAT and delivery charges. We can keep it for you until the weekend, so please let us know by then if you wish to purchase." This is from the Contract paper from March of this year.

Would you consider this an invitation to treat, or an offer?

iamanengine

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

"Thank you for your enquiry. We have one Micro-Digger for sale, at a cost of €10,000 including VAT and delivery charges. We can keep it for you until the weekend, so please let us know by then if you wish to purchase." This is from the Contract paper from March of this year.

Would you consider this an invitation to treat, or an offer?

I think it might be looking for you to discuss quotations. Per Harvey v Facey a quotation will be considered an invitation to treat. However per Dooley v Egan a quotation can be transformed into an offer by words of limitation, in Dooley it was "for immediate acceptance only".

So in this case "We can keep it for you until the weekend" turns it into an offer. That's my thinking anyway, could be wrong, someone please chime in if I'm off here!

legaltraineex

Does anyone have constitutional law examiner's reports or sample answers?

Can swap EU/Company/Contract

sbbyrne

Would anyone be able to summarise the ruling in De Agostini case in EU please? Its FMOG re advertising (to kids).

I have the case facts, i'm just struggling to see what it is the court actually decided? Thanks!

legaltraineex

sbbyrne wrote: »

Would anyone be able to summarise the ruling in De Agostini case in EU please? Its FMOG re advertising (to kids).

I have the case facts, i'm just struggling to see what it is the court actually decided? Thanks!

Facts
A Swedish rule that prohibited TV advertising aimed at children under 12 was challenged on the basis that it infringed the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services.

Holding

The Court of Justice found that a restriction on advertising goods constituted a selling arrangement. (See Keck v Mithouard re distinction between selling arrangements and characteristics - national rules that affect selling arrangements fall outside the scope of Article 34)

However, they accepted that such a restriction could affect access to the Swedish market more for imports than domestic goods where, for example, the importer had no other effective means of entering the market i.e. an importer would need to advertise in order to make individuals aware of his product.

The issue was left to the national courts to decide in light of the CJEU ruling.

sbbyrne

legaltraineex wrote: »

Facts
A Swedish rule that prohibited TV advertising aimed at children under 12 was challenged on the basis that it infringed the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services.

Holding

The Court of Justice found that a restriction on advertising goods constituted a selling arrangement. (See Keck v Mithouard re distinction between selling arrangements and characteristics - national rules that affect selling arrangements fall outside the scope of Article 34)

However, they accepted that such a restriction could affect access to the Swedish market more for imports than domestic goods where, for example, the importer had no other effective means of entering the market i.e. an importer would need to advertise in order to make individuals aware of his product.

The issue was left to the national courts to decide in light of the CJEU ruling.

Thank you so so much - this cleared it up for me. Thanks a million!!

holliek

Are intentional torts just another word for trespass?

LeVaterIzVet

holliek wrote: »

Are intentional torts just another word for trespass?

I think they're torts that don't involve negligence? Negligence means a failure to take reasonable care, whereas assault would be intentional?

holliek

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

I think they're torts that don't involve negligence? Negligence means a failure to take reasonable care, whereas assault would be intentional?

Thanks you've actually explained it very well! Is there anything else then besides trespass to land and person that would fall into this category?

LeVaterIzVet

holliek wrote: »

Thanks you've actually explained it very well! Is there anything else then besides trespass to land and person that would fall into this category?

I think Defamation could be but I'm not 100%!

LeVaterIzVet

When answering a product liability question where you're discussing statute + common law, does the 1991 Act make all of the prior cases irrelevant? If it's strict liability, do we still need to talk about the duty of care, breach, harm etc? I'm very confused..

holliek

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

When answering a product liability question where you're discussing statute + common law, does the 1991 Act make all of the prior cases irrelevant? If it's strict liability, do we still need to talk about the duty of care, breach, harm etc? I'm very confused..

I know the 1991 act doesn't apply to pre 1991 products although not sure about cases. And tbh I'm still confused about strict liability. I have duty of care in my notes for product liability so would assume its still talked about but honestly not sure

iamanengine

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

When answering a product liability question where you're discussing statute + common law, does the 1991 Act make all of the prior cases irrelevant? If it's strict liability, do we still need to talk about the duty of care, breach, harm etc? I'm very confused..

Liability under the Act is strict. Concerned with the condition of the product. Behaviour of the producer is irrelevant. Defect based.

Liability under CL principles is based on Negligence. Did the producer act with reasonable care? Fault based.

The Act does not prejudice a plaintiff's rights under Contract or Tort principles, the Act provides supplemental protection. So the case law is still relevant. They are concerned with different things. On one hand, (CL) was the producer negligent, on the other, (Act) was there a defect in the product.

hullaballoo

holliek wrote: »

Thanks you've actually explained it very well! Is there anything else then besides trespass to land and person that would fall into this category?

Assault, battery, trespass to land, trespass to person, intentional infliction of emotional distress, passing off, conversion, false imprisonment.

I would suggest that you probably needn't worry too much about these.

I don't think anyone has ever come undone for not being able to categorise torts properly.

moomin2901

Company Law

a receiver is an agent to the debenture holder and the company right?
in standard chartered bank v walker Dennning states the receiver is not an agent of the bank/debenture holder?
#headwrecked

help!

lawDani

Kallyann1 wrote: »

Hi,

I passed the FE1s in two sittings in 2018/2019. If anyone wants any advice/ help or notes please dont be afraid to contact me.

114404392{at}umail.ucc.ie

I know how daunting they can be so i will try and get back to you ASAP.

Hi there, thank you for your positive vibes and willingness to help a deemed soul!
i am attempting Criminal, Contract and Property for my first sitting in October.

as i am beyond the cramming stage and coming from a Media Degree background, have you any advise on most important areas to cover for Contract?

and maybe the other two..
much obliged.
D.

lawDani

Olliepollie wrote: »

I am studying it just because the course is so small that it's bound to reappear and it hasn't come up since 2017! I'm thinking easements, L&T law are almost definites and registration is likely this sitting.

No evidence to back it up but that's just what I'm thinking haha

are you leaving any chapters out? I am in over my head this is my first sitting and may have underestimated these lovely exams!

ciarocxcc

Anyone have a company exam report for March?

LawGirl3434

Equity

Specific performance - Contracts for personal services - can anyone explain both Ahmed v HSE and Carroll v Dublin bus? Think I’m getting confused with the wording about injunctions

Coleman101

Hi guys could someone please please post up the 8 topics that came up in contract paper for March 2019? Would be hugely appreciated thank you

saphiradragon

I think the whole duties and responsibilities of a trustee is important too... It comes up in a lot of problem questions.

yournerd

holliek wrote: »

I know the 1991 act doesn't apply to pre 1991 products although not sure about cases. And tbh I'm still confused about strict liability. I have duty of care in my notes for product liability so would assume its still talked about but honestly not sure

It is strict liability for all products

Daly29

Hmmmm, badly running out of time here. Any kind soul want to swap material? I have material (typed notes, grids, sample answers, etc, etc) on all the subjects. Looking to swap for for EU typed notes. Thank you.

EAL2019

Does anyone have any idea of what topics to focus on for Consitutional?

I have broadly covered:
-Constitutional Interpretation
-Sovereignty and Prerogatives
-Separation of Powers (The three branches and non-justiciability, wasnt going to do internal workings of the Oireachtas...)
-Unenumerated Rights (have broadly covered them all but unsure which to focus on)
-Right to Life, Person, Good Name
-Equality
-Freedom of Expression
-Trial in due Course of Law
-Private Property
-Family and Education
-Hoping to cover Religion if I have time

For the topics that have heavy ECHR-Jurisprudence elements to them (eg Freedom of Expression, some of the Criminal Process stuff) I also havent really focused on that, as I figured an in-depth analysis of the ECHR position isn't super relevant for the Irish consitutional position (unless obviously its referenced in the Irish cases etc)

Any opinions or advice would be much appreciated!

DUMSURFER

Anyone have an up-to-date Tort grid they could send on please.

Jeremiah25

What are we covering for Land guys?

Any predictions?

jewels652

Can somebody be kind enough to explain the rule in Strong and Bird in simple plain English I have read it from 3 different books and I am just not getting it. Maybe is a sign I should take a break form studying

Sineaddh

Best bet for contract? I have offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations but don’t know what else I should focus on?