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

Hamerzan Sickles

CMUL wrote: »

For constitution yesterday I answered the family question based on equality it was the same facts as the Somjee v Min for Justice case. Did anyone else take that stance?

Yeah, but I also talked about reasons (fair procedures), equality (just general equality rights) and family rights generally. I even considered bringing covid-19 into it and discussing the concept of deporting someone if it meant their life would be endangered but ran out of time. That one would have been a stretch.

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

The manual I used for Equity is from 2016.

Is there any really important recent cases I am missing?

Just copping that this might be a problem...

I sat it in October, I can't think of any particularly recent cases. Estoppel has a few cases from 2017 or 2018 if I remember correctly. But I don't think it would make or break an answer for any topic to be honest, none of them reinvent the law.

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Are we covering tracing or prop estoppel?

Yeah, I fancy prop to come up and tracing is grand cos it's short. Only thing I am cutting is Purpose Trusts and Resulting except Advancement (I know Charitable is almost guaranteed but I hate studying it and I figure if I cover everything else I'm good).

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

I sat it in October, I can't think of any particularly recent cases. Estoppel has a few cases from 2017 or 2018 if I remember correctly. But I don't think it would make or break an answer for any topic to be honest, none of them reinvent the law.

That's grand, as long as there is nothing that introduced some big change.

20082014

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

godfather2

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

I would cover defamation. In fact, cover as much as you. Was bitten badly last Oct as didn't cover enough. You have loads if time left to cover them.

isawitfirst

I'm covering defamation myself. My manual doesn't have a chapter called Res Ipsa Loquiter and I don't even know what that is so guess i'm not doing that haha. I've cut animal and fire because its small and I'm cutting very little else.

Lawofattracti

iamanengine wrote: »

The manual I used for Equity is from 2016.

Is there any really important recent cases I am missing?

Just copping that this might be a problem...

I sat in last time and not much stands out in my head other than I heard there has been some change to the Campus Oil test which my be worth checking out!

isawitfirst

Definitely look up the merck sharpe and dohme v clonmel healthcare case from last year, changed campus oil!

iamanengine

Link to info on the Merck Sharpe and Dohme case - https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2019/07/31/supreme-court-rules-on-preliminary-injunction-test

Adequacy of damages is to be considered as part of the balance of convenience

"Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that "the preferable approach is to consider the adequacy of damages as part of the balance of convenience" assessment rather than a hurdle prior to that assessment. The adequacy of damages will continue to be "the most important component" of the balancing exercise. However, availability of damages will not be decisive, particularly where difficulty in calculation makes it likely that any damages awarded will not be a precise and perfect remedy."

lawstudentirl

Reya10 wrote: »

Equity

Is DMC valid in cases of suicide?

Case law seems to say no but it all predates legalisation of suicide?

In the Irish case of Mills v. Shields and Kelly (1948) the DMC was valid even though the guy committed suicide.

However, he was seriously ill so the court said it was like the case where a guy thought he’d die from cancer but actually died from pneumonia.

I don’t know what the situation is if the contemplation of death itself relates to suicide.

nmurphy1441

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

For the last few sitting I’ve said I wasn’t going to cover defamation because I thought I couldn’t come up that much in a row!!!! Bad idea on my part! Cover as much as you can!!! Passing off is due a run I think, as is vicarious liability! But you’d never know!

CiaranS93

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Are we covering tracing or prop estoppel?

Both came up last sitting. Can't see tracing coming up again but so short probably worth covering.

I'm going with:

Mareva
Purpose
3 Certainties
DMC
Undue influence
Trustees duties
Estoppel
Tracing

In that order

supercreative

lawstudentirl wrote: »

In the Irish case of Mills v. Shields and Kelly (1948) the DMC was valid even though the guy committed suicide.

That was because he wasn't contemplating suicide though I believe, if the gift is made in contemplation of death by suicide and then the suicide occurs it would be contrary to the old case-law (Agnew). As others have said, this would probably be decided differently now, but people should bear in mind that assisted suicide has come up in the DMC question occasionally and Fleming v Ireland would be a good one to cite for that to point out that assisted suicide isn't legal (also s2(2) Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993).

Jeremiah25

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Both came up last sitting. Can't see tracing coming up again but so short probably worth covering.

I'm going with:

Mareva
Purpose
3 Certainties
DMC
Undue influence
Trustees duties
Estoppel
Tracing

In that order

No secret/resulting trusts?

lawstudentirl

supercreative wrote: »

That was because he wasn't contemplating suicide though I believe, if the gift is made in contemplation of death by suicide and then the suicide occurs it would be contrary to the old case-law (Agnew). As others have said, this would probably be decided differently now, but people should bear in mind that assisted suicide has come up in the DMC question occasionally and Fleming v Ireland would be a good one to cite for that to point out that assisted suicide isn't legal (also s2(2) Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993).

Thanks! I had no idea how to address the assisted suicide element.

CiaranS93

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

No secret/resulting trusts?

Nope. Willing to take a gamble as I find it hard to distinguish between them.

The trust side is painful where the equity side is slightly more understand able in my opinion anyways.

On another note, city colleges sample answer for UI don't mention manifest disadvantage anywhere, can this be left out?

Jeremiah25

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Nope. Willing to take a gamble as I find it hard to distinguish between them.

The trust side is painful where the equity side is slightly more understand able in my opinion anyways.

On another note, city colleges sample answer for UI don't mention manifest disadvantage anywhere, can this be left out?

I don't have anything on it either so hopefully so!

isawitfirst

I believe that it because it is in england that you have to prove manifest disadvantage. In Carroll v Carroll, Denham said you need to prove "substantial benefit" to the stronger party. A load of english cases said that you needed manifest disadvantage to the weaker party eg National Westminster bank v morgan but then in Prendergast v Joyce, Gilligan said we should stick with the Carroll way of doing things, rather than following the english route re manifest disadvantage.

Open to correction

Rainbow25

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

I was planning to leave out defamation and employer's liability but cover the rest!

Jeremiah25

Hastings & Bass was up last sitting wasn't it? Strong vs. Bird too?

leavingcert17

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

No secret/resulting trusts?

I really don’t think that’s enough! Equity isn’t that predictable

bobbyness

Rainbow25 wrote: »

I was planning to leave out defamation and employer's liability but cover the rest!

Don't have any exam grids, but I'd expect it comes up quite a lot. It's just so topical and always coming up in new cases.

On the topic of grids. Anyone managed to source a Tort law exam grid?

ihatethesea

Does anybody have an EU grid? I have grids in contract, property, equity and criminal if anyone is stuck?

EAA123

ihatethesea wrote: »

Does anybody have an EU grid? I have grids in contract, property, equity and criminal if anyone is stuck?

I have one. if you want to give me your email I can send you it

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Link to info on the Merck Sharpe and Dohme case - https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2019/07/31/supreme-court-rules-on-preliminary-injunction-test

Adequacy of damages is to be considered as part of the balance of convenience

"Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that "the preferable approach is to consider the adequacy of damages as part of the balance of convenience" assessment rather than a hurdle prior to that assessment. The adequacy of damages will continue to be "the most important component" of the balancing exercise. However, availability of damages will not be decisive, particularly where difficulty in calculation makes it likely that any damages awarded will not be a precise and perfect remedy."

So the test now is:

Bona fide case to be tried and balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages)?

And not adequacy of damages as a separate point?

iamanengine

CiaranS93 wrote: »

So the test now is:

Bona fide case to be tried and balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages)?

And not adequacy of damages as a separate point?

Yeah I believe that is the case.

Is it just UI that comes up under Rescission? Mistake and Misrep seems more Contract-y. My grid doesn't even have Rescission on it, it just has UI

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah I believe that is the case.

Is it just UI that comes up under Rescission? Mistake and Misrep seems more Contract-y. My grid doesn't even have Rescission on it, it just has UI

I think so but don't hold me to that

nmurphy1441

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Hastings & Bass was up last sitting wasn't it? Strong vs. Bird too?

They did! Satisfaction could be a good one to know this time around

iamanengine

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

They did! Satisfaction could be a good one to know this time around

Satisfaction almost guaranteed for the note Q this sitting I reckon

DUMSURFER

iamanengine wrote: »

PM me your email

Any chance I could get in on this as well? Lost my LTD v DAC notes and only realized the other day and only have enough on SAP for my 5 reforms essay

iamanengine

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Any chance I could get in on this as well? Lost my LTD v DAC notes and only realized the other day and only have enough on SAP for my 5 reforms essay

Yeah, pm me your email

rightytighty

What is the company marker like?

jewels652

Hi guys,
I am looking for short notes for competition law I have learning notes, grid to share.

Tia

Law1997

Contract law

Can anyone explain then tenders part of offer and acceptance when it says it will accept the lowest bid offered? I’m very confused - also confused about privilege clauses that they don’t have to accept any bid.

Law1997

Also what in God’s name is an innominate term?! My notes just say it’s not preclassified?

Is it.. where the parties haven’t said it’s a condition or a warranty, and in order to determine what it is, the courts look at the effect of its breach on the innocent party?

And Hong Kong Firs held that if it deprives the innocent party of the fundamental thing he contracted for, it’s a condition?

iamanengine

Law1997 wrote: »

Also what in God’s name is an innominate term?! My notes just say it’s not preclassified?

Is it.. where the parties haven’t said it’s a condition or a warranty, and in order to determine what it is, the courts look at the effect of its breach on the innocent party?

And Hong Kong Firs held that if it deprives the innocent party of the fundamental thing he contracted for, it’s a condition?

Yeah you're right, C determine whether it is a condition or warranty once breached based on seriousness of the consequences, fundamental breach = condition

Law1997

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah you're right, C determine whether it is a condition or warranty once breached based on seriousness of the consequences, fundamental breach = condition

Thanks! Really finding contract confusing

JimmyJazzz

Law1997 wrote: »

Contract law

Can anyone explain then tenders part of offer and acceptance when it says it will accept the lowest bid offered? I’m very confused - also confused about privilege clauses that they don’t have to accept any bid.

Think of the tender process as an auction by writing. An invitor essentially says 'make me an offer' and prospective contractors submit bids (or 'tenders'). If the invite is for services the lowest bid offered is most desirable to the invitor (imagine a county council looking to have a playground built for the lowest price). If the invitor is selling something the highest bid would be preferable.

Tenders are invitations to treat but an invitor can ensure that they're taken as such by including a privilege clause ie a statement in the invite that they're not obliged to accept any bid in particular.

Law1997

JimmyJazzz wrote: »

Think of the tender process as an auction by writing. An invitor essentially says 'make me an offer' and prospective contractors submit bids (or 'tenders'). If the invite is for services the lowest bid offered is most desirable to the invitor (imagine a county council looking to have a playground built for the lowest price). If the invitor is selling something the highest bid would be preferable.

Tenders are invitations to treat but an invitor can ensure that they're taken as such by including a privilege clause ie a statement in the invite that they're not obliged to accept any bid in particular.

Thank you so much it’s a lot clearer now! excellent example of the county council - thank you

iamanengine

Anyone else really really tired

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone else really really tired

Yes! And def in a worse off position atm than i was at the same stage for Constitutional.

leavingcert17

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone else really really tired

Yes but gotta keep going! Take regulars breaks, lots of tea and snacks. They’re worth the few days stress if can get 50!

Law1997

How long do you spend revising a topic? I’ve learned my topics like a week or so ago and need to revise for the exams and each one is taking me ages- however I know the FE1s are a mile wide and an inch deep! Any advice

jewels652

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Yes but gotta keep going! Take regulars breaks, lots of tea and snacks. They’re worth the few days stress if can get 50!

I am exhausted

lawgrad15

rightytighty wrote: »

What is the company marker like?

Thought he was quite sound. Did better than expected.

Law1997

jewels652 wrote: »

I am exhausted

Same

iamanengine

Law1997 wrote: »

How long do you spend revising a topic? I’ve learned my topics like a week or so ago and need to revise for the exams and each one is taking me ages- however I know the FE1s are a mile wide and an inch deep! Any advice

My method the day before the exam is to allocate either 15 or 30 mins depending on the size of the topic, cram really intensely for those 15 mins, then just move on to the next once the 15 is up, I've found that if I get like 3/4 cycles through all my topics they seem to stick in my head for the exam.

Was very difficult to pull off for Constitutional, because of the amount of topics I only got 2 cycles in, so in theory it should be much easier for Equity

ahhhhhFE1s

iamanengine wrote: »

My method the day before the exam is to allocate either 15 or 30 mins depending on the size of the topic, cram really intensely for those 15 mins, then just move on to the next once the 15 is up, I've found that if I get like 3/4 cycles through all my topics they seem to stick in my head for the exam.

Was very difficult to pull off for Constitutional, because of the amount of topics I only got 2 cycles in, so in theory it should be much easier for Equity

Ya I would do something similar, try to get a one page revision sheet done for each topic and then the day before I'll try go over and over those pages

iamanengine

Did someone say earlier that you don't need manifest disadvantage for presumed undue influence anymore or did I imagine that?

Or is that just in relation to banks once there is a non-commercial element?

Keto1456

Any very kind soul out there have recent Examiner's reports for Contract, looking for October 18, March 19 and October 19? More than happy to share anything in return!