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

Pass22

Hi all, please does anyone have sample answers for Tort ? Pls help!!!!

Tony_TwoLegs

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!!!

In the last few minutes I've decided to forego Constitution on Thursday.
I only started study for 3 exams (first 3 done in March) on 15th after I finished my Masters Dissertation.
Three weeks to study for 3 was poor judgment!!!
I feel a weight off my shoulders as I can focus on Contract and Equity.
I've lost my motivation. Overwhelmed.

bluntspoon

Hi all,

Couple of niggly questions on Company I'm hoping people might be able to help with.

1) Realisation of Corporate Assets: Is a floating charge a "disposition" or a "payment"? I.e. Could it fall under S604 and S608 as well as under S597, or does it only need to be considered under s597? The report from the last exam only mentions S597..

2) Restriction: A few of the problem questions have mentioned company records being destroyed in a fire or lost in a stolen car. I know a few cases dealing with restriction for failure to maintain proper records, but are there any cases that deal specifically with a scenario like this?

Thanks!

nmwcc

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

In the last few minutes I've decided to forego Constitution on Thursday.
I only started study for 3 exams (first 3 done in March) on 15th after I finished my Masters Dissertation.
Three weeks to study for 3 was poor judgment!!!
I feel a weight off my shoulders as I can focus on Contract and Equity.
I've lost my motivation. Overwhelmed.

Last march I wrote the same thing into the thread the night before constitutional. One of the members convinced me just to go in and give it a bash, its paid for and worst that can happen is you will fail. I crammed the night before and went in - just so happened questions I had looked at came up and I passed in the high 60s. If there is any paper that things come back to you as your writing, I do think its constitutional! If you feel you have it in you the night before, cram, go in and give it a go!

I didnt know one single case note btw - I was able to answer them however. Cases which have come up in your study stick in the back of your mind sometimes and it really is surprising what comes out onto the page under pressure.

ak4321

nmwcc wrote: »

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




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".

Really appreciate the reply. Just so I'm clear - would you simply equate the facts of Evans (player/referee) to current q (player/coach) and then touch on scope/course to advise on the schools liability?

Tony_TwoLegs

nmwcc wrote: »

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

In the last few minutes I've decided to forego Constitution on Thursday.
I only started study for 3 exams (first 3 done in March) on 15th after I finished my Masters Dissertation.
Three weeks to study for 3 was poor judgment!!!
I feel a weight off my shoulders as I can focus on Contract and Equity.
I've lost my motivation. Overwhelmed.

Last march I wrote the same thing into the thread the night before constitutional. One of the members convinced me just to go in and give it a bash, its paid for and worst that can happen is you will fail. I crammed the night before and went in - just so happened questions I had looked at came up and I passed in the high 60s. If there is any paper that things come back to you as your writing, I do think its constitutional! If you feel you have it in you the night before, cram, go in and give it a go!

I didnt know one single case note btw - I was able to answer them however. Cases which have come up in your study stick in the back of your mind sometimes and it really is surprising what comes out onto the page under pressure.

All good points.
Thing is I must travel up, stay in Dublin. Travel back.
Next 4 days would be all Constitutional and neglecting the other two.
I feel I would pass the other two if I attack them over 10 days. Otherwise, risk the 3.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

nmwcc

ak4321 wrote: »

Really appreciate the reply. Just so I'm clear - would you simply equate the facts of Evans (player/referee) to current q (player/coach) and then touch on scope/course to advise on the schools liability?

I would briefly discuss duty of care - does the coach owes a duty of care; proximate relationship, forseeability, no public policy grounds and fair and reasonable and throw in a case or two on that. I would emphasis the control which the coach had over the student, going into cases where its been established that control imports responsibility and therefore a duty of care has been established.

Then I would look at the standard of care and whether that standard has been breached - Mentioning the Kelly analysis; focusing on (i) probability (ii) gravity. Evans v Vowels is NB in regards to the gravity of the injury Sam sustained in the question, I think.

Once duty of care and standard of care discussed, I would look at the coach's employment. Walsh v Bailebero Co Op and Grogan (there must be an employment and employee relationship, this is satisfied).

Then to finish I would look at defences possibly raised; Contributory negligence here - Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd (1952)- person guilty of CN if ought reasonably have foreseen that, if he didn’t act as reasonably prudent man would, he may be hurt. In his reckonings he must consider others being reckless or careless.

I would be mention that Sam had been unconscious for sometime though and I would not be confident that a defence of CN would be successful.

Again I have never sat Tort so I could be way off!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

All good points.
Thing is I must travel up, stay in Dublin. Travel back.
Next 4 days would be all Constitutional and neglecting the other two.
I feel I would pass the other two if I attack them over 10 days. Otherwise, risk the 3.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Perhaps you could just do two days for Constitutional and still use the next two days for the other two. If you fail it then so be it but at least you give yourself a chance this way.

greenfrog24

Pass22 wrote: »

Hi all, please does anyone have sample answers for Tort ? Pls help!!!!

Also looking for those, if anybody could forward them to me as well that would be fantastic!

yournerd

greenfrog24 wrote: »

Also looking for those, if anybody could forward them to me as well that would be fantastic!

PM!

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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

Anyone?

Or even the actual Company law papers if you could. I know the topics that came up, but I just want to analyse the questions.

yournerd

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Anyone?

Or even the actual Company law papers if you could. I know the topics that came up, but I just want to analyse the questions.

Certain Retention of title must be registered while others do not.
Crystallisation
2014 Act changes to registration
Priority of Registration

The Talking Bread

yournerd wrote: »

Certain Retention of title must be registered while others do not.
Crystallisation
2014 Act changes to registration
Priority of Registration

Brilliant, thanks.

yournerd

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Brilliant, thanks.

When ROT need to be registered or not is a common recurring question!

Pass22

yournerd wrote: »

PM!

Pm sent. Thank you

nmwcc

Anyone who has passed tort, are you expected to know the sections where statute applies? for example in the Liability for Defective Products Act would you be required to know that Defences were under s5. Or could you merely state the defences withing citing the section?

The same for Defamation...does each defence need to have a corresponding section number in the exam or can you be more vague?

Same for occupier's liability act etc??

Bayb12

nmwcc wrote: »

Anyone who has passed tort, are you expected to know the sections where statute applies? for example in the Liability for Defective Products Act would you be required to know that Defences were under s5. Or could you merely state the defences withing citing the section?

The same for Defamation...does each defence need to have a corresponding section number in the exam or can you be more vague?

Same for occupier's liability act etc??

I would definitely try to know them especially for defective products

Tony_TwoLegs

Looking for Q topics in the March paper for CONTRACT.

PM me what you need....

yournerd

In case I forget, good luck to everyone
I hope I won't be the only one needing a few candles lit tonight.

Leraf

nmwcc wrote: »

Anyone who has passed tort, are you expected to know the sections where statute applies? for example in the Liability for Defective Products Act would you be required to know that Defences were under s5. Or could you merely state the defences withing citing the section?

The same for Defamation...does each defence need to have a corresponding section number in the exam or can you be more vague?

Same for occupier's liability act etc??

Defences are S6.

FOHSMH254

Anyone think I'm cutting it too fine with the following for EU?:

Institutions
General Principles
Supremacy, Direct Effect & State Liability
Free Movement of Goods
Citizenship/Workers
Equality (Pay for men/women)
Competition Law
Art 263
Holding out for the Case Note question to go my way!

Thanks

yournerd

FOHSMH254 wrote: »

Anyone think I'm cutting it too fine with the following for EU?:

Institutions
General Principles
Supremacy, Direct Effect & State Liability
Free Movement of Goods
Citizenship/Workers
Equality (Pay for men/women)
Competition Law
Art 263
Holding out for the Case Note question to go my way!

Thanks

I'm doing minus competition law so I hope so

Robbie25808

Tort:

For causation, in Ireland do we use the 'but for test', material contribution test or material increase in risk test?

hurler1000

Hi everyone, I'm doing equity, criminal and contract next week. I've this week off work and starting to cram. I know I'm up against it time wise. What topics would you pick and choose to cover if you were in my boat? I know i dont have time to cover/ learn everything.Thanks everyone.

LegalLaaaaady

FOHSMH254 wrote: »

Anyone think I'm cutting it too fine with the following for EU?:

Institutions
General Principles
Supremacy, Direct Effect & State Liability
Free Movement of Goods
Citizenship/Workers
Equality (Pay for men/women)
Competition Law
Art 263
Holding out for the Case Note question to go my way!

Thanks

I'm covering in or around the same topics, they tend to come up on most papers so fingers crossed!!!

Tony_TwoLegs

hurler1000 wrote: »

Hi everyone, I'm doing equity, criminal and contract next week. I've this week off work and starting to cram. I know I'm up against it time wise. What topics would you pick and choose to cover if you were in my boat? I know i dont have time to cover/ learn everything.Thanks everyone.

Mareva essay, Trustee duties, Undue influence and Cy-Pres essays came up in March. As did Promissory Estoppel and DMC PQs.
Company i wouldn't ignore CA reform, restriction, director duties, examinership, oppression etc

Leraf

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Tort:

For causation, in Ireland do we use the 'but for test', material contribution test or material increase in risk test?

"But For" is single causes. Material Contribution is for Cumulative or Multiple Causes. A and B combined gave rise to the injury or increased the risk of it occurring.

Thats my understanding of it anyway.

louser1

No motivation today, it's going to be a long night 🙈

Fe1andDone

louser1 wrote: »

No motivation today, it's going to be a long night ��

You and me both. The most I've done is review notes but god forbid I actually manage to sit down to an exam Q

fe1hunzo

Hey everyone!

Maybe a stupid q, but do you need a form of ID for the exams like a passport? Or would student ID from college suffice? Or do we need it at all? ðŸ˜