Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)
Comments
-
-
-
-
Would Q1 not have been Duty of care and omissions?? thats what i said, therefore no need to talk about causation, standard of care, etc as no duty existed at all.
RE: Q3; along with VL, would it not be psy damage too: Our lecturer told us we are not psychiatrists and therefore how can we judge what is psy dam in such instances and according to Cuddy, witnessing your child in an acident.. you're owed a duty of care... plus the Q said state the possible responsiblity in these eventS!! therefore Im hoping we get marks for noticing this...
Thats what Im hoping anyway. But hopefully every argument we put forward will get us enough marks to pass. Fingers crossed!!
Some one mentioned about EU examiner marks easy, really???? God I hope so!!!
Thats is the approach I took in Q3 aswell, liability for Nervous shock provided she can provide recognisable pysch illness and other criteria under Kelly v. Hennessy test... I also done Passing Off and Res Ipsa Loquitur, straight forward I think... Q8 Rylands and Nuisance, although I messed up here with the Act of God, put it as part of Rylands not a defence, ops! Also done the trespass question last, had 15 mins and completely blanked on all case law, hopefully done enough on the others to pass
Next please!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
What a CRAP paper. I'm sitting in the IBIS still in utter shock at the entire thing!! Have to do company tomorrow and get my head round revising for that in a few minutes but worst exam paper I've seen so far!
fingers crossed the next 3 will go handy to get my 3/4 done 
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
bob_lob_law wrote: »Yeah, I just twigged it when I was near the end and added a few paragraphs on at the end - felt like I was throwing in the kitchen sink!
I found the venue to be fine, first time doing them so I have no real comparison.I did every last problem question! Did the same as you in adding in neg misstatement to the products one, and actually felt while I was writing it that that was mores what the question was. Felt like a lot of them required you to talk about multiple things!
Same here. It looked like PL, smelt like PL and barked like PL but I decided it was a cat
i.e. negligent misstatement. I based my q on that. Hopefully it's not a case that if you didn't focus on PL you failed the question. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Thats exactly what I am covering and the people that I know are. My constitutional interpretation is even a little scant.
In Family & Ed only covered parental decision making autonomy - child medical issues - and left the rest as it never comes up.
Ya im doing the same re family.
Getting quite confused on the whole non justicibility bit- I know what it is i just dont see how it comes up in questions, is it a side issue or has it appeared by itself?
Totally starting to freak out now and after tort today finding it very hard to concentrate!!
Also, what are people covering for the Oireachtas/ President, just powers or are you covering art26 procedure too?
Roll on friday (afternoon!)0 -
Honestly...
s.25 contract
Separate Legal Personality
Ultra Vires
Corporate Authority
Transfer and Transmission of shares
Borrowing
Receivership
Realisation of Corpoate Assets
Reckless and Fraudulent Trading
Reg 80
Subject of Directors Duties
Time has just ran out on me and this is all ill manage for tomorrow.. praying the paper will suit!
Im sure this will make you feel better..
I'm not the best for retaining information so i'm seriously cramming tonight. Good luck on having that much in your head! i'm just trying to get cases in and very grateful I've that giant block of a book to give me a hand 0 -
-
-
-
Did the Equity course with Griffith last year but just wondering Re new Charity act.
Can anyone help me with the details of new Charities Act 2009. Has it been fully implemented and also in an exam is the old case law still what will be used to explain poverty, education , religion and community?
Essentially can I answer exam questions in the same way as before( pre the Charities act).
Cheers for any help.
The Charities Act 09 was to be implemented in stages & very few of the provisions are actually in force. In particular, section 3 of the Act which contains the new public benefit test and the new heads under 'other purposes beneficial to the community' has not yet been commenced.
So if it came up I think I'd answer with reference to the old caselaw but would emphasise the changes that would be effected by the Act when it is commenced. I have a friend who did the course in Independent Colleges this year who said they were teaching it there as though CA 09 is in force, which is a bit weird
Most of what you need to know is in Section 3 of the Act, if you look it up online you'll see the changes are mainly to do with the public benefit requirement.
Hope that helps in someway and if anyone else has any other info please share...its been confusing me too but I hope I've got it correct!
I reckon the limbo state of charities law in general is a possible reason why it hasn't come up a lot recently. Examiner may be avoiding it until the Act is fully in force.0 -
Advertisement
-
-aboutagirl- wrote: »The Charities Act 09 was to be implemented in stages & very few of the provisions are actually in force. In particular, section 3 of the Act which contains the new public benefit test and the new heads under 'other purposes beneficial to the community' has not yet been commenced.
So if it came up I think I'd answer with reference to the old caselaw but would emphasise the changes that would be effected by the Act when it is commenced. I have a friend who did the course in Independent Colleges this year who said they were teaching it there as though CA 09 is in force, which is a bit weird
Most of what you need to know is in Section 3 of the Act, if you look it up online you'll see the changes are mainly to do with the public benefit requirement.
Hope that helps in someway and if anyone else has any other info please share...its been confusing me too but I hope I've got it correct!
I reckon the limbo state of charities law in general is a possible reason why it hasn't come up a lot recently. Examiner may be avoiding it until the Act is fully in force.
Thanks that helps a lot, I've also felt the Examiner might stay away due to uncertainty. Maybe might mean a push to Cypres Q or Purpose Trust Q, ??0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement