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

Paleblood

Dr Ice wrote: »

Abbreviation

Hey,

Just a quick question. Is it ok to abbreviate in exams, plaintiff (p), defendant (d), and even to go a bit further duty of care (DOC), standard of care (SOC). Obviously one would illustrate what the abbreviation stands for the first time it is used, this is the norm in academic texts. I'm coming from another discipline here so I'm unsure.

Thanks.

It's definitely not the norm in legal texts, so perhaps that's your answer.

Paleblood

BASHBAG wrote: »

Thanks a million. So in essence it assesses both parties ability to deal with the possible consequences of the injunction being granted or withheld? And then bases its decision upon this?

Yes, that's my understanding.

And of course that ties directly into the third limb of the test - damages.

If the Court refuses relief, will the respondent be able to properly compensate the applicant if the applicant wins at trial?

If the Court grants relief, will the applicant be able to properly compensate the respondent if the respondent wins at trial?

BASHBAG wrote: »

So, as the purpose of interlocutary injunction is often to preserve the "status quo" does this mean the courts will be more likely to grant the injunction if the convenience/inconvenience is balanced between the two parties?

It's not about balance in the sense that the Court want to see people in a 50/50 position in terms of degree of risk.

It's more about what way the balance falls in terms of what would cause the greatest risk of injustice - granting the application or refusing it.

A the least that's my understanding of it.

Ferry.Man

Dr Ice wrote: »

Abbreviation

Hey,

Just a quick question. Is it ok to abbreviate in exams, plaintiff (p), defendant (d), and even to go a bit further duty of care (DOC), standard of care (SOC). Obviously one would illustrate what the abbreviation stands for the first time it is used, this is the norm in academic texts. I'm coming from another discipline here so I'm unsure.

Thanks.

I passed 4 exams in March and used abbreviations in most exams. A few are ok I would guess, I just wouldn't go overboard with them.

monroe89

Dr Ice wrote: »

Abbreviation

Hey,

Just a quick question. Is it ok to abbreviate in exams, plaintiff (p), defendant (d), and even to go a bit further duty of care (DOC), standard of care (SOC). Obviously one would illustrate what the abbreviation stands for the first time it is used, this is the norm in academic texts. I'm coming from another discipline here so I'm unsure.

Thanks.

Ferry.Man wrote: »

I passed 4 exams in March and used abbreviations in most exams. A few are ok I would guess, I just wouldn't go overboard with them.

Same, passed 4 in March using a few abbreviations here and there so should be ok - time is tight after all!

Dr Ice

Paleblood wrote: »

It's definitely not the norm in legal texts, so perhaps that's your answer.

Hey thanks for the feedback, I won't use shorthand if it's not appropriate, much appreciated.

Although it is the case that you see the use of abbreviations in legal texts. Think European Economic Area (EEA) as referred to in the companies act, the Europen Court of Human Rights (ECHR), or even the abbreviations used in legal citations.

Robbie25808

Tort:

I know defenses are important but they usually have this at the end of a chapter.

I am just wondering if there has ever been a stand alone question on defences?

Paleblood

Dr Ice wrote: »

Although it is the case that you see the use of abbreviations in legal texts. Think European Economic Area (EEA) as referred to in the companies act, the Europen Court of Human Rights (ECHR), or even the abbreviations used in legal citations.

That should be ECtHR.

'ECHR' is the European Conventions on European Rights.

If you are going to use standardised abbreviations it's important that you get them right.

ak4321

Tort Q

Sam, 17 was the best defender for his secondary school soccer team. Sam was never afraid to be 'brave' and enjoyed a robust physical game. He was feared by his opponents who would often kick the ball away once they spotted Sam's imminent arrival.
Sam's team made it to the national final of the Secondary School Soccer Title Cup. The game was in its 80th minute and Sam's team were ahead 1-0. Suddenly Sam saw an opposing player kick a ball high into the penalty area, aimed directly for another opponent who was ideally situated to head the ball neatly into their open goal. Sam wasted no time and charged towards his opponent to dispossess him. As both Sam and the other player jumped into the air, they smashed into each other's heads, falling back to the ground. Sam just lay there unconscious. By the time the medical team and his coach Peter arrived, Sam had been unconscious for about 2 minutes but a dose of smelling salts quickly brought Sam around.
Sam began to get up at which point Peter said "Not so fast! You were out cold. I am taking you out of the game", Sam looked at Peter and said "No way. There is only ten minutes left - I'm fine. We could still lose this game, you need me."
Peter knew there was a protocol to follow which invlovled the team doctor examining Sam, but Sam had run back into position and the referee was signalling to re-start the game. Peter knew that Sam was essential if their team was to hang on for victory, and besides Sam would not leave the field willingly. Peter shrugged his shoulders and headed baclk to the sideline to watch the end of the game.
Sam's team won but during the immediate post match celebrations he collapsed unconscious on the field. He was taken by ambulance to hospital where it was found that he had a bleed on his brainas a result of the concussion that could have been prevented if Sam had not continued playing.
Discuss what liability in tort, if any the SECONDARY SCHOOL might be liable for.


Could anyone shed any light on the correct approach here? Is it a case of just duty and standard and care? I know it kind of resembles the Evans case in standard of care. The fact that it doesn't say if the coach is a teacher or not is confusing. Also unsure if there's some contributory neg here or not?
Would really appreciate any guidance!

Dr Ice

Paleblood wrote: »

That should be ECtHR.

'ECHR' is the European Conventions on European Rights.

If you are going to use standardised abbreviations it's important that you get them right.

Haha touché. While I don't need to be told the importance of precision I'm sure I won't forget the difference between the ECtHR and ECHR in a hurry lol.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Dr Ice

ak4321 wrote: »

Tort Q

Sam, 17 was the best defender for his secondary school soccer team. Sam was never afraid to be 'brave' and enjoyed a robust physical game. He was feared by his opponents who would often kick the ball away once they spotted Sam's imminent arrival.
Sam's team made it to the national final of the Secondary School Soccer Title Cup. The game was in its 80th minute and Sam's team were ahead 1-0. Suddenly Sam saw an opposing player kick a ball high into the penalty area, aimed directly for another opponent who was ideally situated to head the ball neatly into their open goal. Sam wasted no time and charged towards his opponent to dispossess him. As both Sam and the other player jumped into the air, they smashed into each other's heads, falling back to the ground. Sam just lay there unconscious. By the time the medical team and his coach Peter arrived, Sam had been unconscious for about 2 minutes but a dose of smelling salts quickly brought Sam around.
Sam began to get up at which point Peter said "Not so fast! You were out cold. I am taking you out of the game", Sam looked at Peter and said "No way. There is only ten minutes left - I'm fine. We could still lose this game, you need me."
Peter knew there was a protocol to follow which invlovled the team doctor examining Sam, but Sam had run back into position and the referee was signalling to re-start the game. Peter knew that Sam was essential if their team was to hang on for victory, and besides Sam would not leave the field willingly. Peter shrugged his shoulders and headed baclk to the sideline to watch the end of the game.
Sam's team won but during the immediate post match celebrations he collapsed unconscious on the field. He was taken by ambulance to hospital where it was found that he had a bleed on his brainas a result of the concussion that could have been prevented if Sam had not continued playing.
Discuss what liability in tort, if any the SECONDARY SCHOOL might be liable for.


Could anyone shed any light on the correct approach here? Is it a case of just duty and standard and care? I know it kind of resembles the Evans case in standard of care. The fact that it doesn't say if the coach is a teacher or not is confusing. Also unsure if there's some contributory neg here or not?
Would really appreciate any guidance!

What year is this question from?

icsheep

In the Spring '17 Company law paper, examiner asks us to comment on whether, in fact, it is the types of charges that need to be registered, and not the 2 stage procedure of charge registration, which has been the bigger change brought in by the 2014 Act. Any ideas on how to answer this?

What charges DO NOT need to be registered under the 2014 Act?
Help would be appreciated!

ak4321

Dr Ice wrote: »

What year is this question from?

Q1 from the last sitting!

Supermax1988

ak4321 wrote: »

Tort Q

Sam, 17 was the best defender for his secondary school soccer team. Sam was never afraid to be 'brave' and enjoyed a robust physical game. He was feared by his opponents who would often kick the ball away once they spotted Sam's imminent arrival.
Sam's team made it to the national final of the Secondary School Soccer Title Cup. The game was in its 80th minute and Sam's team were ahead 1-0. Suddenly Sam saw an opposing player kick a ball high into the penalty area, aimed directly for another opponent who was ideally situated to head the ball neatly into their open goal. Sam wasted no time and charged towards his opponent to dispossess him. As both Sam and the other player jumped into the air, they smashed into each other's heads, falling back to the ground. Sam just lay there unconscious. By the time the medical team and his coach Peter arrived, Sam had been unconscious for about 2 minutes but a dose of smelling salts quickly brought Sam around.
Sam began to get up at which point Peter said "Not so fast! You were out cold. I am taking you out of the game", Sam looked at Peter and said "No way. There is only ten minutes left - I'm fine. We could still lose this game, you need me."
Peter knew there was a protocol to follow which invlovled the team doctor examining Sam, but Sam had run back into position and the referee was signalling to re-start the game. Peter knew that Sam was essential if their team was to hang on for victory, and besides Sam would not leave the field willingly. Peter shrugged his shoulders and headed baclk to the sideline to watch the end of the game.
Sam's team won but during the immediate post match celebrations he collapsed unconscious on the field. He was taken by ambulance to hospital where it was found that he had a bleed on his brainas a result of the concussion that could have been prevented if Sam had not continued playing.
Discuss what liability in tort, if any the SECONDARY SCHOOL might be liable for.


Could anyone shed any light on the correct approach here? Is it a case of just duty and standard and care? I know it kind of resembles the Evans case in standard of care. The fact that it doesn't say if the coach is a teacher or not is confusing. Also unsure if there's some contributory neg here or not?
Would really appreciate any guidance!

This was a vicarious liability question as you're advising the school about liability for something Peter did. You wouldn't really need to discuss DOC or SOC here. Sam's a student and he's been hurt due to Peter's negligence so it's presumed there was a duty owed and that it's been breached, causing damage.

The question is can the secondary school be held liable. Is there an employer/employee relationship between Peter and the School? As you mentioned, it doesn't say if he's a teacher or not. He could be employed as a coach by the school but he could perhaps be a volunteer? You just need to establish that there's a relationship akin to employer/employee using the control test or the business integration test.

Then you need to establish that Peter was acting within the scope/course of his employment at the time he committed the wrong. You could argue his job is to coach the team and he made the decision to leave him on so was acting in the course of his employment. If the employee made an intentional wrongdoing (which it could be argued this was) then again the employer can be liable as long as it's closely connected to his work.

ArthurDayne

Anyone else feel like a question on referendums with some crossover on abortion seems almost too topical to not come up?

RyanMcG123

Tort question - Anyone know how to deal with this question??


Question 3 October 2013:
John worked in an investment company, Sububus, as a mid-level fund manager. This would be his tenth year. Although the job was exceptionally stressful, he had made a substantial amount of money for both him and the clients. Nonetheless, unknown to his colleagues he was on heart medication for stress related symptoms. This morning John had arrived at work early to go through his emails before the markets opened. Most of them were of the usual type but he did notice a few unusual emails from Drama Bank congratulating him on opening his new account and telling him it was active immediately. He assumed it was the usual email scam as he had never heard of Drama Bank.
When the markets opened, John began selling some of the investments following instructions from his clients. He then noticed that each time he made a sale he would receive an email from Drama Bank stating: 'This is to confirm your lodgement to your account." He then received an email from Drama Bank congratulating him on lodging over €1 million. Suddenly his floor manager, Richard began shouting at John, demanding to know why he was stealing client funds. With sheer terror John collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital having suffered a massive heart attack.
In fact the whole thing had been a practical joke organised by Richard to mark John's ten years with the firm. John's trades had never occurred, there was no such thing as Drama Bank and no money had been lost.
Advise John if he has any action in tort against Sububus.

Paleblood

Dr Ice wrote: »

Haha touché. While I don't need to be told the importance of precision I'm sure I won't forget the difference between the ECtHR and ECHR in a hurry lol.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

kirakirakira1

Company Law

Did Ultra Vires come up in Spring '17?

I think it is unlikely to come up this time around, tbh. Any opinions?

The Talking Bread

kirakirakira1 wrote: »

Company Law

Did Ultra Vires come up in Spring '17?

I think it is unlikely to come up this time around, tbh. Any opinions?

Company Law Last 2 Sittings


October 16
Q1. Reform and the 2014 Act.
Q2. Directors Duties - S.158 (old Article 80 Table A)
Q3. Directors Duties - S.238/239 and S.228
Q4. Corporate Borrowings
Q5. Share Transfer
Q6. Winding Up (Liquidations)
Q7. Receivership
Q8. Shareholder Protection and Remedies (s.212)

March 17
Q1. Corporate Contracts / Authority - Rule in Turqaund case
Q2. Corporate Personality - Soloman, Tower, DKN, Angersoll Press etc.
Q3. Directors Duties - S.228
Q4. Restriction and Disqualification of Directors
Q5. Shareholder protection and remedies (Note: This was about rule in Foss v Harbottle, the Derivative Action. S.212 did not feature).
Q6. Dispositions of Company Assets.
Q7. Corporate Borrowings
Q8. Reform and the 2014 Act.

The Talking Bread

Ugh, just realised the Wales game is Monday night, not Tuesday. Criminal on Monday and Property the next day.

So I will be on heavy cram duty Monday night.

FFS

The Talking Bread

Can anyone give me the specifics of the corporate Borrowings questions that came up in last 2 sittings.

XxMCRxBabyxX

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone else feel like a question on referendums with some crossover on abortion seems almost too topical to not come up?

I'm in two minds on this - it feels like a certainty but then he also seems to avoid abortion a lot despite the fact that it's been topical for the past few years.

Robbie25808

Does anybody have the limitation periods for Tort?

They seem to have been changed over the years.

MO94

Anyone got any tips for company?

D-Day is approaching and the panic is starting to kick in

Ferry.Man

In Tort October 16 Q7 (sorry don't have the question online to copy it) does anybody know if we should talk about Professional Negligence or Economic Loss and Negligent misstatement. It doesn't say if they suffered any economic harm.

Also the professional is a tax advisor so do you apply the dunne standards the same as a solicitor?

Thanks for any help!

yournerd

Has anyone lost motivation or its just me? Cant find the energy to study or revise right now and exam day is so near!!!

Leraf

yournerd wrote: »

Has anyone lost motivation or its just me? Cant find the energy to study or revise right now and exam day is so near!!!

I am willing myself to be more worried/stressed. I only have tomorrow to learn off Tort and I am sitting here calmly writing notes. Notes that I have been writing for months now are no good apparently. They are too long my brain says, must be shortened. Give me strength !

nmwcc

ak4321 wrote: »

Tort Q

Sam, 17 was the best defender for his secondary school soccer team. Sam was never afraid to be 'brave' and enjoyed a robust physical game. He was feared by his opponents who would often kick the ball away once they spotted Sam's imminent arrival.
Sam's team made it to the national final of the Secondary School Soccer Title Cup. The game was in its 80th minute and Sam's team were ahead 1-0. Suddenly Sam saw an opposing player kick a ball high into the penalty area, aimed directly for another opponent who was ideally situated to head the ball neatly into their open goal. Sam wasted no time and charged towards his opponent to dispossess him. As both Sam and the other player jumped into the air, they smashed into each other's heads, falling back to the ground. Sam just lay there unconscious. By the time the medical team and his coach Peter arrived, Sam had been unconscious for about 2 minutes but a dose of smelling salts quickly brought Sam around.
Sam began to get up at which point Peter said "Not so fast! You were out cold. I am taking you out of the game", Sam looked at Peter and said "No way. There is only ten minutes left - I'm fine. We could still lose this game, you need me."
Peter knew there was a protocol to follow which invlovled the team doctor examining Sam, but Sam had run back into position and the referee was signalling to re-start the game. Peter knew that Sam was essential if their team was to hang on for victory, and besides Sam would not leave the field willingly. Peter shrugged his shoulders and headed baclk to the sideline to watch the end of the game.
Sam's team won but during the immediate post match celebrations he collapsed unconscious on the field. He was taken by ambulance to hospital where it was found that he had a bleed on his brainas a result of the concussion that could have been prevented if Sam had not continued playing.
Discuss what liability in tort, if any the SECONDARY SCHOOL might be liable for.


Could anyone shed any light on the correct approach here? Is it a case of just duty and standard and care? I know it kind of resembles the Evans case in standard of care. The fact that it doesn't say if the coach is a teacher or not is confusing. Also unsure if there's some contributory neg here or not?
Would really appreciate any guidance!

I would approach it under duty of care, standard of care and touch on vicariously liability

ak4321 wrote: »

Tort Q

Sam, 17 was the best defender for his secondary school soccer team. Sam was never afraid to be 'brave' and enjoyed a robust physical game. He was feared by his opponents who would often kick the ball away once they spotted Sam's imminent arrival.
Sam's team made it to the national final of the Secondary School Soccer Title Cup. The game was in its 80th minute and Sam's team were ahead 1-0. Suddenly Sam saw an opposing player kick a ball high into the penalty area, aimed directly for another opponent who was ideally situated to head the ball neatly into their open goal. Sam wasted no time and charged towards his opponent to dispossess him. As both Sam and the other player jumped into the air, they smashed into each other's heads, falling back to the ground. Sam just lay there unconscious. By the time the medical team and his coach Peter arrived, Sam had been unconscious for about 2 minutes but a dose of smelling salts quickly brought Sam around.
Sam began to get up at which point Peter said "Not so fast! You were out cold. I am taking you out of the game", Sam looked at Peter and said "No way. There is only ten minutes left - I'm fine. We could still lose this game, you need me."
Peter knew there was a protocol to follow which invlovled the team doctor examining Sam, but Sam had run back into position and the referee was signalling to re-start the game. Peter knew that Sam was essential if their team was to hang on for victory, and besides Sam would not leave the field willingly. Peter shrugged his shoulders and headed baclk to the sideline to watch the end of the game.
Sam's team won but during the immediate post match celebrations he collapsed unconscious on the field. He was taken by ambulance to hospital where it was found that he had a bleed on his brainas a result of the concussion that could have been prevented if Sam had not continued playing.
Discuss what liability in tort, if any the SECONDARY SCHOOL might be liable for.


Could anyone shed any light on the correct approach here? Is it a case of just duty and standard and care? I know it kind of resembles the Evans case in standard of care. The fact that it doesn't say if the coach is a teacher or not is confusing. Also unsure if there's some contributory neg here or not?
Would really appreciate any guidance!

I would answer under DOC, SOC and touch on vicarious liability - personally.

In Evans, the relationship was proximate, and the injury reasonably forseeable, and if the referee failed to exercise reasonable care, liability. The referee accepted a role of enforcing rules to minimise danger in a dangerous sport. Here the referee had failed to enforce rules intended to protect players, and it was a decision taken whilst play was stopped, not running play. The court considered the gravity of the harm (one of the considerations set out in Kelly v St Laurence). The court also considered the control aspect - control imports liability (Dorser Yacht, Hostey v McDonagh), ref had control in Evans. I would say "for the purpose of the question I will assume Peter is a teacher".

Robbie25808

For Company is this too much of a risk to study:

-5 Changes
-Constitutional Documentation
-Separate Legal Personality
-Corporate Authority
-Directors
-Restrictions
-Directors Stat Duties arising on insolvency
-Membership and Shareholders
-Transfer of Shares
-Shareholder Protection
-Meetings of Shareholders
-Borrowing
-Recievership
-Liquidation

Really appreciate some feedback. Tried to look at realisiation of corporate asset but cant get my head around it at all.

yournerd

Robbie25808 wrote: »

For Company is this too much of a risk to study:

-5 Changes
-Constitutional Documentation
-Separate Legal Personality
-Corporate Authority
-Directors
-Restrictions
-Directors Stat Duties arising on insolvency
-Membership and Shareholders
-Transfer of Shares
-Shareholder Protection
-Meetings of Shareholders
-Borrowing
-Recievership
-Liquidation

Really appreciate some feedback. Tried to look at realisiation of corporate asset but cant get my head around it at all.

That looks fine to me but maybe someone whose passed the company exam has a better perspective?

nmwcc

Robbie25808 - Looks like more than enough to me. I covered those minus Constitutional Documentation and passed easily