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

lawless11

Quick question, how long in advance are the dates released for the exams, for example for the October 2018 session, when can you sign up/see the dates on the registration form? Would it be something like May 2018 (or before/after)?

Fonzie123

It will be released the day of March results, which should be May 4th. Normally 6 Fridays after last exam

Frances94

Has anyone spotted any new and important constitutional law cases?

Lumi77

the acknowledgment and receipt letters for exams were out in the post already.
the letters with the venue and examination numbers are out 3 weeks before the exams

Gunslinger92

Lumi77 wrote: »

the acknowledgment and receipt letters for exams were out in the post already.
the letters with the venue and examination numbers are out 3 weeks before the exams

Oooooh ****e. I'm hoping to move house in the next couple of weeks. Suppose I'd best give the law society a buzz when I confirm it

Lumi77

Definitely do

Gunslinger92

Anyone know what came up in EU last time?

FreeFallin94

In terms of Constitutional Law and the topic on Personal Rights, can anyone give me any advice on how to cut it down? I know it seems to come up every year (looking at the exam grid) but are there any rights that hardly ever appear? Or are there ones that I could just have a very brief overview of?

It's just that the manual I'm taking notes from has nearly 40 pages on this topic and it just seems insane to have to learn it all. Plus the note-taking itself will take me forever, which I don't have! Thanks in advance

CrazyDogLady21

Looking for a contract, property or criminal grid!
Can swap for EU, Tort, Company or Equity!

cjaybcjayb

Guys big question if anyone can please help! Was Q3 on the October 2017 Tort paper on Vicarious liability or on employers liability?

CrazyDogLady21

cjaybcjayb wrote: »

Guys big question if anyone can please help! Was 3 on the October 2017 Tort paper on Vicarious liability or on employers liability?

I answered it on Vicarious Liability so 100% sure it was!

jus_me

Is anyone attempting all 8 in Oct 2018?

Has anyone previously known someone to attempt all 8?

I'll be finishing my law degree in May and doing the Griffith prep course but I've started study now.

I don't expect to pass all 8 but I want to see how many I can get over with first time round.

BASHBAG

Hi folks,
Just a tip for Company Law this year. I attended a talk by Tom Courtney in Nuig last night regarding charges. Lets just say I would be putting corporate borrowing as a top tier topic for study this sitting, if you are doing Company Law.

Don't kill me if it doesn't come up but he heavily indicated that it would (pretty much straight up said it)

fujilaw

Hey guys, does anyone have the Company Law exam/exam report from October 2016, seem to have misplaced mine? Willing to swap other material if needs be.

Thanks!

Robbie25808

Benny and Elaine are director and 50:50 shareholders of Imperial Pets Limited (the “Company”)
which operates a pet shop. The shop has been in operation for three years and in that time
Benny has confined his involvement to keeping the Company’s books and accounts, dealing
with the shop lease, and other matters relating to the administration of the Company. Elaine,
on the other hand, has been involved in operating the shop and selling small animals such as
hamsters, guinea-pigs, mice and rabbits. Elaine has also been responsible for sourcing and
buying the animals and has established connections with local breeders. There was a clear
understanding that Benny and Elaine would stick to these responsibilities.
The Company’s articles of association permit the appointment of a managing director, but
Benny and Elaine never formally passed a board resolution appointing either of them as
managing director of the Company.
In January, Elaine caught a severe flu which developed into pneumonia and incapacitated her
for 4 weeks. In that time, Benny had to run the shop, and although he never before acquired
animals, started buying them. From a trade magazine called “Rabbit Universal News” he read
of a special offer that a breeder of Netherland Dwarf Rabbits had – 3,000 at only €10 each;
this was a particularly good price as Benny knew Elaine could sell them for €35 each. Benny
contacted the seller, and telling the seller that he was the Managing Director of the Company,
entered into a contract to buy the rabbits for €30,000.
On Elaine’s return to work she was horrified at the contract Benny had concluded. Based on
sales over the previous three years of 10 rabbits a week, it would take nearly 6 years to sell
3,000 rabbits!
When the rabbit dealer refused to cancel the contract, Elaine contacts you for advice as to
whether the contract is enforceable against the Company and, specifically, whether Benny had
the authority to bind the company to the contract to buy the 3,000 rabbits.
You are required to advise Elaine on her query and in your answer you are required to cite all
relevant case and statute law.


Anybody know what to write on this question? Was there any representation here as Elaine did not know that Benny was acting in this capacity?
Also, could it be a circumstance giving rise to suspicion as it was always Elaine who dealt with the sales? (however, it may not be unusual as she is now sick)

Gunslinger92

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0082-judgment.pdf

Might be useful for tort. Judgment of the UK Supreme Court given today on police officers and whether they owe a duty of care. I haven't read all of it but it has some useful passages on the correct interpretation of Caparo Industries v Dickman

hullaballoo

@Robbie25808 I'll give that a go tomorrow.

david_etc

Hello all!

I have grids up to 2016 for Contract, Property and Criminal, looking to swap for Tort, Constitutional and Equity.

Thanks!

jus_me

Would anyone have Criminal, Tort or contract notes or grinds they'd be kind enough to share?

I've just started my FE1 Prep and need all the help I can get

Thanks a mill

cojamocork

Does anyone have an idea what they'll cut out for Tort? I can see no discernible patterns/bankables...

Robbie25808

Constitutional Law:

What is the current position in relation to access to legal advice before questioning?

XxMCRxBabyxX

Is anyone that still waiting for confirmation of their application or should I just wait for my exam pack at this stage?

EJ15

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Is anyone that still waiting for confirmation of their application or should I just wait for my exam pack at this stage?

I emailed them yesterday and they confirmed they had received my application and it was being processed so should receive letter in the next few days

hullaballoo

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Benny and Elaine are director and 50:50 shareholders of Imperial Pets Limited (the “Company”)
which operates a pet shop. The shop has been in operation for three years and in that time
Benny has confined his involvement to keeping the Company’s books and accounts, dealing
with the shop lease, and other matters relating to the administration of the Company. Elaine,
on the other hand, has been involved in operating the shop and selling small animals such as
hamsters, guinea-pigs, mice and rabbits. Elaine has also been responsible for sourcing and
buying the animals and has established connections with local breeders. There was a clear
understanding that Benny and Elaine would stick to these responsibilities.
The Company’s articles of association permit the appointment of a managing director, but
Benny and Elaine never formally passed a board resolution appointing either of them as
managing director of the Company.
In January, Elaine caught a severe flu which developed into pneumonia and incapacitated her
for 4 weeks. In that time, Benny had to run the shop, and although he never before acquired
animals, started buying them. From a trade magazine called “Rabbit Universal News” he read
of a special offer that a breeder of Netherland Dwarf Rabbits had – 3,000 at only €10 each;
this was a particularly good price as Benny knew Elaine could sell them for €35 each. Benny
contacted the seller, and telling the seller that he was the Managing Director of the Company,
entered into a contract to buy the rabbits for €30,000.
On Elaine’s return to work she was horrified at the contract Benny had concluded. Based on
sales over the previous three years of 10 rabbits a week, it would take nearly 6 years to sell
3,000 rabbits!
When the rabbit dealer refused to cancel the contract, Elaine contacts you for advice as to
whether the contract is enforceable against the Company and, specifically, whether Benny had
the authority to bind the company to the contract to buy the 3,000 rabbits.
You are required to advise Elaine on her query and in your answer you are required to cite all
relevant case and statute law.

My apologies that this is going to be a very brief pointer rather than a full exposition on the law.

This relates to the company's corporate capacity under Chapter 3 of the 2014 Act from here onwards: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/38/enacted/en/print#sec38

The section dealing with managing directors is here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/38/enacted/en/print#sec159

There's little wriggle room left for company's to avoid contracts on the basis of lack of capacity. The fact that there is a misrep on Benny's part (arguably) doesn't prejudice the rights on third-parties. If the company is at a loss due to a fraud (if Benny's representation could be deemed to be a fraud) or by negligence of one of its directors, there's a remedy against the director to account for the losses. There are remedies for breach of director's duties under part 5: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/38/enacted/en/print#part5

NBB above are ss. 228 (1)(g) and 232. Overall, Benny seems to have acted in good faith and accounting for "the knowledge and experience which the director has" (the subjective part) under s. 228 (1) (g) (ii) (contains subjective and objective tests), there might be little that can be done in terms of acting against Benny personally.

Also, at a practical level (and showing practical knowledge is important), taking action against someone who is a 50:50 partner in the business is going to lead to an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship and s. 212 is almost inevitably going to be invoked by one or the other if you take this kind of action.

Further NBB is that if the debt results in the company becoming insolvent and going into insolvent liquidation (court WU or CRs WU), the likelihood is Benny will be pursued if he has his own assets for his actions.

An alternative would be to refuse to take delivery of the rabbits and face down an attempt to wind the company up (as €30k is above the threshold of €10k under s. 570) by the creditor.

Basically, the advice is to seek to negotiate the breeder down a bit!

Blazedup

March 2011 Q5

Section 38(1) of the Companies Act 1963 gives a company, through its authorised
agents, the capacity to conclude a contract. In order for a contract to be
enforceable as against the company, the purpose of the contract must be intra
vires the objects of the company. Furthermore, the person who purports to
contract on behalf of the company must have authority to do so. In my advice I
will consider the issues of ostensible and actual authority, the Rule in Turquand’s
case and the EC Regulations 1973.
Actual authority to contract on behalf of the company may arise under the articles
of association in the case of directors or the secretary or may arise out of an
employee’s contract of employment. Actual authority may also be implied where
an agent acting in a particular area would be expected to have authority to act in a
certain manner because those acts are necessary and incidental to his post.
A person with no actual authority to contract on behalf of the company may
nevertheless bind the company if he is deemed to have ostensible authority to do
so. In Kett v. Shannon & English, ostensible authority was referred to as a
representation;
“Which intended to convey and does convey, to the third party that the
arrangement entered in to under the apparent authority of the agent will be
binding on the principal.”
The Irish courts in the above case were following the English case of Freeman &
Lockyer v. Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd. In this case the directors of
the company had never officially appointed a managing director, although one of
the directors acted as an MD, with the knowledge of the other board members.
When the board sought to repudiate a contract entered in to by the acting MD, the
court held that the implicit representations made by the board that the said director
had the power to bind the company, led the plaintiff to assume that the acting MD
had such authority. On that basis, the contract would bind the company.
There are four aspects to the concept of ostensible authority.
1. The company must hold the agent out as having the authority to do the act
in question. There is no particular set of circumstances which will give rise
to a representation of ostensible authority, though most commonly it will be
by conduct or by allowing an agent to act as though he had authority:
Ulster Factors Ltd. V. Entonglen.
2. The company who makes the representation must itself have the actual
authority to make such a representation.
3. There must be reliance on the representation. Absence of reliance will be
fatal: Dunn v. MBS Distribution Ltd.
4. The object’s clause of the company must permit the contract of the sort
entered in to by the third party.
A further protection offered by the common law to those who contract with a
corporate body is the Rule in Turquand’s case. In this case was endorsed by the
Irish courts in AIB v. Ardmore Studios Ltd. The rule allows an outsider to assume
that the internal company requirements necessary to perfect the company’s actual
authority have been complied with. However, this rule has limitations which may
leave a party to the contract unable to enforce its’ terms:
1. There must be actual reliance on the memorandum and articles of
association, which show the potential authority of the agent. In Rama
Corporation Ltd. v. Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd, the persons
relying on the director’s power to contract had not read the company’s
documents and could not therefore rely on the rule.
2. If the irregularity is a matter of public record the third party cannot rely on
the indoor management rule. Therefore, while ordinary resolutions can be
assumed to have been properly passed, special resolutions, which require
registration in the Companies Registration Office, are a matter of public
record and a party to a contract is therefore on constructive notice of any
irregularities. Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia
3. Awareness of the irregularity will frustrate the operation of the Rule in
Turquand’s case. This caveat will most frequently operate against
company insiders, who should know whether the resolutions have been
complied with: Cox v. Dublin City Distillery Ltd
4. If a contract is of an exceptional nature the outsider may be deemed to be
on notice that there may be an irregularity and he is under a duty to satisfy
himself as to the agent’s authority. AL Underwood v. Bank of Liverpool
Reg. 6 of the EC (Companies) Regulations 1973 provides protection to outsiders,
acting in good faith, who contract with a limited company and holds that any action
by the board of directors or any registered person will be deemed to be within the
capacity of the company. The regulation protect those who contract with a
“Managing Director,” though he has not been so appointed and where a
contracting party was not conferred with the power to enter in to the type of
transaction in issue. The outsider was presumed to act in good faith, in the
English case of TCD Ltd. v. Gray [1986] 11 All ER 587. The common law
protection is still relevant to situations where the board of directors has not been
properly appointed. Regulation 10 of the EC (Companies) Regulations 1973 limits
the categories of documents that an outsider is deemed to have constructive
notice of. In order to fix an outsider with constructive notice of a company’s
documents, notice of its delivery to the Companies Registration Office must be
published in Iris Oifigiul.
It is unclear whether Benny has actual authority to bind the company, as a director
one might have assumed that he did. Certainly the rabbit seller could argue that
he has ostensible authority although there is no apparent “representation” by the
company that he did have authority to bind the company. In circumstances where
Benny has bound the company to a lease and performs other important functions
this might have constituted a representation that he had authority to bind the
company. If the rabbit seller has read the company’s constitutional documents
and assumed that an MD had been appointed then he could rely on the rule in
Turquand’s case to enforce the contract. The EC Regulations 1973 may also
operate against Elaine, particularly if Benny is a registered person.

hullaballoo

^^^Could you try reformatting that? It's impossible to read.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Just a suggestion but would the long exam questions like the above not be better in the subject specific threads? It really clogs up this thread when you're not doing that subject.

Or if that's just me, continue as you were!

blackcat1234

Would any kind soul have EU sample answers? Really struggling!

b.anna

Hi any chance someone could send me a company grid Would really appreciate it.

Blazedup

hullaballoo wrote: »

^^^Could you try reformatting that? It's impossible to read.

Sorry it was a copy and paste job.