FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

skeenan89

itsmol wrote: »

Whats peoples plan for company??
Incorporation
Corporate personality
Ultra Vires
Directors Duties
Article 80
Restriction & Disqualification
Fraudulent and Reckless Trading
Share Transfer
Shareholder Protections & REmedies
Capital Maintenence
Corporate Borrowings
Examinership
Receivership.

Is it really bad to leave out winding up and corporate contracts & authority & disposition of companies assets? basically im doign everything that didnt come up last year tbh inc the ones which always come up.
Kind of panicking that i havent done enough but at this stage i dont know if I can take any more!

im stressing too! thinkin of leaving out capital maintenance and receivership/examinership! and possibly winding up based on how it goes....
really panicking now!! are u leaving chapts 10 and 11 out of the independent manual??
are u bringin the companies acts into the exam???

itsmol

skeenan89 wrote: »

im stressing too! thinkin of leaving out capital maintenance and receivership/examinership! and possibly winding up based on how it goes....
really panicking now!! are u leaving chapts 10 and 11 out of the independent manual??
are u bringin the companies acts into the exam???

I dont know which topics u are talking about as I did griffith? I think im gonna do receivership as it hasnt been up since oct 08 and there as an article on it in this months gazette although it was mainly based on property but did mention the new 2009 act.....

donovanu

skeenan89 wrote: »

specific performance and part perfomance relates to a contractual right....part performance is performance of a contractual obligation.

proprietary estoppel - refers to a PROMISE of legal right to an interest in property, it is not a contractual promise - it is a mere legal right!!

hope this helps!!:)

Cool thanks a mill! It had been driving me crazy!!

law_lady

frustratedTC wrote: »

Hey lads, can anyone explain to me the Salmon and Heuston debate regarding Vicarious liability in tort, absolutely wrecking my head so it is!

I'm checking my notes here and I haven't a single thing about this, you're scaring me! Is it some sort of debate over course test v scope test?

steph86

the salmon and heuston debate was referred to in the o'keefe v hickey judgement by hardiman J. It relates to the "close connectin test" Salmond test is that there must be a close connection with the acts the employer has allowed and the acts which the employee has done.
the heuston test is referred to as well but would need to re read the judgement to remember what it is.
i wouldnt worry about it too much, would be good to make a point in an essay but im not focusing on it, im going off the manual i only came across them reading the o'keefe judgement.

frustratedTC

law_lady wrote: »

I'm checking my notes here and I haven't a single thing about this, you're scaring me! Is it some sort of debate over course test v scope test?

Yeh they give a literal interpretation of the course test and then there's some debate over the literal and liberal interpretation which has gone over my head!!Anyone care to help out?

nr46

Hey guys,

Whats everyone doing for tort? Cant beleive its only 3 days away.

Im doing the following:

All negligence (except professional negligence)
Pure economic loss
nervous shock
vicarious libility
occupiers liability
employers liability
products liability
defamation
tresspass person
defences
damages
limitation periods

Was going to leave out tresspass to land, nusiance/rylands, passing out, liability to animals, defective premises.

Anyone else doing roughly the same?

Hope study going good for everyone, i slept out this morning, so bad start to the day!!!! :mad:

Dylan123

I have picked 5 in detail:
- then have main points for the rest of them
- it only takes a couple of mins to write out the key pts/ headings in case you need to wing it

frustratedTC

I'm doing roughly the same but also doing psych damage just have a feeling it might be on this yr cos ec loss has been done so much lately. Ive notes written for defences, damages and limitations, but haven't learnt them- are they important?

nr46

Dylan123 wrote: »

I have picked 5 in detail:
- then have main points for the rest of them
- it only takes a couple of mins to write out the key pts/ headings in case you need to wing it

5 in detail?? Which 5 topics have you picked?

Ya i might write out short bullets points on land/nuisance/rylands and professional negligence alright!

Cant wait to be free from fe1s!

frustratedTC

nr46 wrote: »

5 in detail?? Which 5 topics have you picked?

Ya i might write out short bullets points on land/nuisance/rylands and professional negligence alright!

Cant wait to be free from fe1s!

Have Rylands ever been asked before?

nr46

frustratedTC wrote: »

I'm doing roughly the same but also doing psych damage just have a feeling it might be on this yr cos ec loss has been done so much lately. Ive notes written for defences, damages and limitations, but haven't learnt them- are they important?

Im the same, have done nervouse shock(psy damage) and havent learned limitations damages or defences yet! But we have 3 days so we should get there!!

I think they could be important as a side issue, dont think they will come up as a question by themselves.

Miss_F

nr46 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Whats everyone doing for tort? Cant beleive its only 3 days away.

Im doing the following:

All negligence (except professional negligence)
Pure economic loss
nervous shock
vicarious libility
occupiers liability
employers liability
products liability
defamation
tresspass person
defences
damages
limitation periods

Was going to leave out tresspass to land, nusiance/rylands, passing out, liability to animals, defective premises.

Anyone else doing roughly the same?

Hope study going good for everyone, i slept out this morning, so bad start to the day!!!! :mad:

Just to point out a question on land comes up almost every year therefore prob would be a good idea to know trespass to land and nuisance aswell. Part from that iam bout the same not doing defective premises, public authority, statutory duties or rylands

pink101

law_lady wrote: »

I'm checking my notes here and I haven't a single thing about this, you're scaring me! Is it some sort of debate over course test v scope test?

"The scope test is much narrower than the course test and is based on the employee's authority (express or implied) to act in the circumstances Farry -v- Great Nth Railway - course test of employment is broader than the scope test and essentially provides that if the act done is something which can be considered to be part of the job or is reasonably incidential to it then it will be within the course of employment. under this test if actions were not strictly within your duties but could nevertheless be considered to be connected in some way to your employment then employer VL for the actions.

See also Lloyd -v- grace Smith - Clerk authorised to handle property. Court held reasonably for injured party to reply on clerk's authority to do what he told her to do and therefore the employee was found to be acting within the scope of employment

pink101

frustratedTC wrote: »

Have Rylands ever been asked before?

came up as an essay question in April 2006 -

JCJCJC

nr46 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Whats everyone doing for tort? ...Was going to leave out .., passing out, liability to animals, :mad:

Just taking a break from Const and read this, love it! The thought of being sued by a cow makes me feel faint!!! hope I don't pass out in the exams...

;-)

corkgirl88

has anyone read the supreme court judgment in Shuit v Mylotte??

has anyone extracted sny general principles from it??

any help greatly appreciated.

trixabelle86

Misfeasance... Anyone know if it's dealt with in Griffith tort manual? Thought I knew the manual in and out but I can't find it anywhere!!!

wez99950

For Injunctions I've noticed that independent colleges don't have a lot on quia timet injunction and anton pillar orders - is what's there enough? I dont have my hands on a griffith manual so am wondering is there more that needs to be covered

For Injunctions - Am i okay with just covering quia timet, mareva and anton pillar orders? don't know if i'll have the time to cover interlocutory as well. leaving out mandatory as it came up last time - a 'safe' risk i'm hoping!!

Bayer Injunctions - any need to revise?

Last Q - as regards the manuals are there any areas that people know of where the independent has cut down too much? E.g. with satisfaction, they only have half a page whereas griffith (i have been told) has a hell of a lot more! I'm just slightly worried that i'm not covering enough in the topics.

frustratedTC

corkgirl88 wrote: »

has anyone read the supreme court judgment in Shuit v Mylotte??

has anyone extracted sny general principles from it??

any help greatly appreciated.[/QUOTE

What topic is that in?

bob_lob_law

Bit of random one, does anyone use tippex in the exams? My handwriting is a mess, so was thinking it might be handy if you're reading over something and you want to change the wording etc.

law girl

I personally wouldn't advise tippex, everything in these exmas is time related and I think relying on something like tippex is just going to distract you and ensure you lose time. Furthermore I actually think tippex makes a bigger mess...it doesn't dry propertly and you try and write over it and then can't read anything!

Have faith you'll get it right first time!

skeenan89

wez99950 wrote: »

For Injunctions I've noticed that independent colleges don't have a lot on quia timet injunction and anton pillar orders - is what's there enough? I dont have my hands on a griffith manual so am wondering is there more that needs to be covered

For Injunctions - Am i okay with just covering quia timet, mareva and anton pillar orders? don't know if i'll have the time to cover interlocutory as well. leaving out mandatory as it came up last time - a 'safe' risk i'm hoping!!

Bayer Injunctions - any need to revise?

Last Q - as regards the manuals are there any areas that people know of where the independent has cut down too much? E.g. with satisfaction, they only have half a page whereas griffith (i have been told) has a hell of a lot more! I'm just slightly worried that i'm not covering enough in the topics.

not too sure what the griffiths manual is like as i too am in independent. however from the past papers ive notice that satisfaction only comes up as a note and the exmainers reports on it have a lot of material not in the manual so id def suggest not to do it!!
im not too sure if bayer will come up!
but i presume u have plently for mareva and anton piller tho because its only 35 mins a question!!
but if anyone else knows and can shed a light that would be great because uv scared me a wee bit now!!:eek:

JCJCJC

Most of what you need to know about Bayer injunctions is here, read on from para 13. It's mentioned in Delaney's textbook as O'Neill v Kelly.

doing

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Bit of random one, does anyone use tippex in the exams? My handwriting is a mess, so was thinking it might be handy if you're reading over something and you want to change the wording etc.

Tippex takes about a minute to dry and can cause a huge mess - better to buy one of those erasable pens from Easons.

Dylan123

In defamation - would i be right in saying some defences are full and others are not?

bob_lob_law

Dylan123 wrote: »

In defamation - would i be right in saying some defences are full and others are not?

Yeah, I think so, I would say truth is a full defence, i.e. not defeated by malice.

Dylan123

I am looking at:
s20 Honest opinion..... whats the deal here..if its fact ..... if its opinion..... is it a full defence or not???

s26 Fair and reasonable publication...... is this a full defence???

i know a trick question can appear in one of these areas?


Honest opinion is more complex than i thought...

bob_lob_law

Dylan123 wrote: »

I am looking at:
s20 Honest opinion..... whats the deal here..if its fact ..... if its opinion..... is it a full defence or not???

s26 Fair and reasonable publication...... is this a full defence???

i know a trick question can appear in one of these areas?

Eh, I'm not sure if I'm correct here but they aren't full defences as they could be defeated by malice, I think? Maybe some else can weigh in and clarify.

Does anyone know if this Betfair case went any further in the courts?

http://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/category/gambling/

Please don’t gamble in the comments section of the blog…….
July 23, 2009
Source: Sunday Business Post write-up: http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=Business+Of+Law-qqqm=nav-qqqid=41591-qqqx=1.asp; Full case report: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H133.html

Mulvaney & Others v. Sporting Exchange Ltd (Trading as Betfair) & others [2009] IEHC 133

The two linked cases both concern bookmakers (Seamus Mulvaney and Ellen Martin) who are claiming damages for libellous comments posted by third parties on a forum hosted by Betfair Ltd. Although a number of issues arise in each of the cases, the main focus in this preliminary judgment was on the applicability of European Directive 2000/31/EC (the E-Commerce Directive) which had been transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Directive 2000/1/EC) Regulations, 2003 (SI 69 of 2003) ahead of a full defamation trial.

This issue is important because while the E-Commerce Directive was designed to remove obstacles to cross-border online services, Article 14 of the Directive can also exempt internet intermediaries from liability for things they host, but did not create. The problem for Betfair is that Article 1(5)(d) of the Directive does not apply to gambling activities. If the court therefore held that the chatroom constituted gambling or betting, then Betfair could not rely on the Directive as a defence.

Ultimately, at [4.15] the court decided that because ‘no significant nexus’ operated between the chatroom forum and the betting sections of the website, no gambling did take place in that area and the Directive did apply.

Given that Betfair could rely on the Directive, the next questions to be answered were whether Betfair was an “intermediary service provider” and if so whether provision of a chatroom comes within the Directive? At [5.14], the Court agreed that it did and held that the use of a chatroom forum by third parties did amount to hosting an ‘information society service’ for the purposes of the Directive. Betfair can therefore rely on the E-Commerce Directive as a defence at the full defamation trial, although whether it will succeed or not will depend on the action that Betfair ultimately took when it became aware of the comments.

trixabelle86

trixabelle86 wrote: »

Misfeasance... Anyone know if it's dealt with in Griffith tort manual? Thought I knew the manual in and out but I can't find it anywhere!!!

Anyone?