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

lawyersuffolk

Can anyone tell what exactly a referential bid is?? i have that it is where you give contract to lowest bidder & need privilege clause to have one ???

CiaranS93

lawyersuffolk wrote: »

Can anyone tell what exactly a referential bid is?? i have that it is where you give contract to lowest bidder & need privilege clause to have one ???

From memory it's where you make a bid along the lines of "the highest other bid plus €x" but might be wrong there

EAL2019

lawyersuffolk wrote: »

Can anyone tell what exactly a referential bid is?? i have that it is where you give contract to lowest bidder & need privilege clause to have one ???

A referential bid is where the bid refers to other bids, ie you basically bid "whatever the next guy bids plus €10k"

LawBoy2018

Does anyone have any tips for contract tomorrow?

Jeremiah25

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Does anyone have any tips for contract tomorrow?

There wasn't much by way of offer/acceptance/consideration on the last paper so they could be due a run.

LawBoy2018

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

There wasn't much by way of offer/acceptance/consideration on the last paper so they could be due a run.

Perfect, thanks! Anything else?

Lawgrad101

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Does anyone have any tips for contract tomorrow?

Consumer Protection is always up!

OMGWACA

Can anyone tell me about the redress scheme in relation to cohabitants the examiner refers to in her reports for Family Home please? she's looking for acdemic critque so would be super grateful if anyone had anything on it please

Jeremiah25

Are we covering privity for contract? Was in last sitting wasn't it?

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Are we covering privity for contract? Was in last sitting wasn't it?

Yeah it was, probably less likely this time around

CiaranS93

Tort

Is it just trespass to the person that comes up the most? Or do all the parts of trespass come up?

ahona

I need a miracle tomorrow

godfather2

ahona wrote: »

I need a miracle tomorrow

You'll get through it. Don't panic, worst thing you can do. Deep breaths, take it bit by bit. You've got this.

DUMSURFER

Hey everyone, do people reckon this will be enough for Tort:

- DOC
- Causation
- Neg - Categories of Person (Road Users & Children)
- Vicarious Liability
- Employers Liability
- Product Liability
- Occupiers Liability
- Trespass to the Person
- Defamation
- Neg Misstatement

Probably going to properly do Nuisance this weekend *fingers crossed* and a little bit of Passing Off and Nervous Shock so I'm covered if needs be as a Q5. Anything people think I'm missing, should swap out or not bother with is welcome.

Murphs122

What is everyone focusing on for EU?

nmurphy1441

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Hey everyone, do people reckon this will be enough for Tort:

- DOC
- Causation
- Neg - Categories of Person (Road Users & Children)
- Vicarious Liability
- Employers Liability
- Product Liability
- Occupiers Liability
- Trespass to the Person
- Defamation
- Neg Misstatement

Probably going to properly do Nuisance this weekend *fingers crossed* and a little bit of Passing Off and Nervous Shock so I'm covered if needs be as a Q5. Anything people think I'm missing, should swap out or not bother with is welcome.

I’d cover limitations of actions and damages too for essay questions!

Fe119

Contract

What are people focusing on within the Terms chapter? I know there were 2/3 questions on the last paper so it's hard to predict what could come up

DRMC

OMGWACA wrote: »

Can anyone tell me about the redress scheme in relation to cohabitants the examiner refers to in her reports for Family Home please? she's looking for acdemic critque so would be super grateful if anyone had anything on it please

This is what I have, I think this is what you’re referring to?

• Cohabitants: (any sex) Part 15 of the 2010 Act defines cohabitants as two adults who live together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship:
▪ S. 172 - cohabitants are entitled to redress when relationship ends if cohabiting for 5 years or 2 years if parents of dependent children.
▪ Mee critical of long minimum time periods in contrast with UK where none if children, Scotland none at all.

Sineaddh

Fe119 wrote: »

Contract

What are people focusing on within the Terms chapter? I know there were 2/3 questions on the last paper so it's hard to predict what could come up

if it came up so much on the last paper is it still likely to come up this time?

Breacnua

Sineaddh wrote: »

if it came up so much on the last paper is it still likely to come up this time?

its not a cert but it comes up a lot

def know innominate term at the very least

sales puff
mere rep hasn't been up in a while

Kellyg248

A trick to remembering case law? 🥴

Fe119

Sineaddh wrote: »

if it came up so much on the last paper is it still likely to come up this time?

I feel like Misrepresentation and Terms keep coming up all the time and can't be left out

ihatethesea

Kellyg248 wrote: »

A trick to remembering case law? ��

I try and think of how the name could some how relate to the facts of a case. One example is to remember that in Hyde v Wrench, a counter offer amounts to rejection of original offer I think "If i wanted to reject someone I would HYDE"
They can get quite silly but its the only thing that works for me!

Kellyg248

Brilliant, thank you, I won't forget that one for sure now!!

ihatethesea wrote: »

I try and think of how the name could some how relate to the facts of a case. One example is to remember that in Hyde v Wrench, a counter offer amounts to rejection of original offer I think "If i wanted to reject someone I would HYDE"
They can get quite silly but its the only thing that works for me!

DUMSURFER

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I’d cover limitations of actions and damages too for essay questions!

Took a look at the questions for Damages there, is it generally the same question every time?

Looks like if you just hit the points below (unless the question restricts you to only aggravated and punitive), you should be good... Is it a lot more nuanced or would this basic outline suffice for an answer on it?

- Compensatory Damages
(i) Pecuniary
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive Damages
- Nominal & Contemptuous

nmurphy1441

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Took a look at the questions for Damages there, is it generally the same question every time?

Looks like if you just hit the points below (unless the question restricts you to only aggravated and punitive), you should be good... Is it a lot more nuanced or would this basic outline suffice for an answer on it?

- Compensatory Damages
(i) Pecuniary
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive Damages
- Nominal & Contemptuous

Exactly yeah! That’s what I’ve done anyway!

mcgreee

EU

Thoughts on Equivalence and Effectiveness being asked again this year?

PerryMason2020

Could anyone break down section 71(2) of the Succession Act for me, I always struggle to work out who it should go to:

Degrees of blood relationship of a direct lineal ancestor shall be computed by counting upwards from the intestate to that ancestor, and degrees of blood relationship of any other relative shall be ascertained by counting upwards from the intestate to the nearest ancestor common to the intestate and that relative, and then downward from that ancestor to the relative; but, where a direct lineal ancestor and any other relative are so ascertained to be within the same degree of blood relationship to the intestate, the other relative shall be preferred to the exclusion of the direct lineal ancestor.

lawstudentirl

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

Could anyone break down section 71(2) of the Succession Act for me, I always struggle to work out who it should go to:

Degrees of blood relationship of a direct lineal ancestor shall be computed by counting upwards from the intestate to that ancestor, and degrees of blood relationship of any other relative shall be ascertained by counting upwards from the intestate to the nearest ancestor common to the intestate and that relative, and then downward from that ancestor to the relative; but, where a direct lineal ancestor and any other relative are so ascertained to be within the same degree of blood relationship to the intestate, the other relative shall be preferred to the exclusion of the direct lineal ancestor.

Maybe this will help you

nmurphy1441

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Took a look at the questions for Damages there, is it generally the same question every time?

Looks like if you just hit the points below (unless the question restricts you to only aggravated and punitive), you should be good... Is it a lot more nuanced or would this basic outline suffice for an answer on it?

- Compensatory Damages
(i) Pecuniary
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive Damages
- Nominal & Contemptuous

Exactly yeah! That’s what I’ve done anyway!

channing90

Eu
I have :
citizenship
DE
Judicial review
Equality
Free movement of goods
Institutions
Kinda know general principles
People’s thoughts ?

jewels652

mcgreee wrote: »

EU

Thoughts on Equivalence and Effectiveness being asked again this year?

Is that free movement of goods? :€

Sineaddh

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

jewels652

channing90 wrote: »

Eu
I have :
citizenship
DE
Judicial review
Equality
Free movement of goods
Institutions
Kinda know general principles
People’s thoughts ?

Throw in workers if you can. Is short enough.

rightytighty

mcgreee wrote: »

EU

Thoughts on Equivalence and Effectiveness being asked again this year?

Wasn’t that just on the October paper?

mcgreee

rightytighty wrote: »

Wasn’t that just on the October paper?

It was but he's asked it twice in a row before and I'm paro it'll come up again

mcgreee

jewels652 wrote: »

Is that free movement of goods? :€

I think its MS Liability/General principles. Only discovered it going through the papers so not sure!

jewels652

Oh god I nearly panicked there. Not doing general principles so I should be fine

channing90

jewels652 wrote: »

Throw in workers if you can. Is short enough.

I kinda have that with citizenship alri actually.
Hopeful for equality it’s a nice essay

EAL2019

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

It might not be listed as a specific topic on its own, but it would probably be in whatever chapter the condition/warranty distinction is.

So some terms are conditions, a breach of which allow the contract to be repudiated, and some are warranties which only lead to damages if breached.

Innominate terms are terms that can’t be clearly classified as either conditions or warranties.

The main case is Hong Kong Fir Shipping, where the privy council (I think? English anyway) basically said that terms shouldn’t be “pigeon holed” as either conditions or warranties and their categorisation depends on the degree of the breach, ie how serious it’s effects are. That approach was adopted in Irish Telephone Rentals v ICS

There was a subsequent English decision Hansa Nord, where they set out factors to be considered: whether the term was expressly stated to be a C/W, whether it was impliedly stated, whether statute/case law gave a classification and whether the effect was such as to substantially deprive the party of all benefit.

I don’t actually have my notes in front of me right now so hopefully someone else will explain better, but hopefully that’ll give you a basic idea!

rightytighty

mcgreee wrote: »

I think its MS Liability/General principles. Only discovered it going through the papers so not sure!

I didn’t know that, thanks for the heads up!

Has anyone got sample answers?

mydogwentroof

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

I second this

TheLawGuy

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

mydogwentroof wrote: »

I second this

Do ye think this has a high chance of coming up again ??

godfather2

mydogwentroof wrote: »

I second this

Something that is not defined as either a condition or a warranty. The effect of its breach will determine which one it actually is.so a court will decide which it is depending on the effect it has on the contract.
I swear I am not trying to wreck your head.

EmmaO94

What will it take for these exams to be cancelled...

HellsBellsxx

Just wondering if anyone had a spare copy of the succession act?

Sineaddh

Misrepresentation

Would I be right in saying it’s actionable in tort for negligent and fraudulent - damages

If it’s innocent then it’s equity and can be rescinded?

JimmyJazzz

Sineaddh wrote: »

Misrepresentation

Would I be right in saying it’s actionable in tort for negligent and fraudulent - damages

If it’s innocent then it’s equity and can be rescinded?

Sales of Goods 1980 s. 45 - damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation too (unless the misrepresenting party had reasonable grounds to believe the misrepresentation and did believe it)

lawyersuffolk

how do you know in a consumer protection Q whether to apply SOG leg or unfair regs??? I know MQ under SOG Act is only in course of business & consumer under SOG is person buying goods not in course of business - so is SOG = consumer not in course of business + is Unfair Terms Reg = re consumer to business contracts? getting very mixed reading past reports

ahhhhhFE1s

lawyersuffolk wrote: »

how do you know in a consumer protection Q whether to apply SOG leg or unfair regs??? I know MQ under SOG Act is only in course of business & consumer under SOG is person buying goods not in course of business - so is SOG = consumer not in course of business + is Unfair Terms Reg = re consumer to business contracts? getting very mixed reading past reports

I know unfair regs applies to terms that have not been individually negotiated so if there is some mention of term not having been discussed you would want to apply it but honestly I'd mention the two of the in any consumer protection question regardless