FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sorchauna

Anybody know when the dates for October will become set and no longer provisional as I need to start thinking about booking hotels...

trixabelle86

Does anyone have any recent grids/past exam papers for equity, contract and criminal? I have everything up until March 2011

Will swap for anything else you're looking for (if I have it) or it could just be your good deed for the day

UberStressed

sorchauna wrote: »

Anybody know when the dates for October will become set and no longer provisional as I need to start thinking about booking hotels...

This my 4th (and hopefully last) sitting, and the dates have never changed from the provisional ones during my previous sittings, I've booked a hotel..I'd say they are unlikely to be changed

sorchauna

UberStressed wrote: »

This my 4th (and hopefully last) sitting, and the dates have never changed from the provisional ones during my previous sittings, I've booked a hotel..I'd say they are unlikely to be changed

Thanks for that, can I ask where did you book... Im divided between Ibis and red cow?

mackerf

When you fill in the application form, the subject choices on the form have the same dates as the provisional so safe to say they are the correct dates!

UberStressed

sorchauna wrote: »

Thanks for that, can I ask where did you book... Im divided between Ibis and red cow?

I booked the Ibis, the exams are expensive enough so I went with the cheaper option. Its not too far and the walk over in the morning helps clear the head!

banterful

Hi all,

Hope study is going well for everyone.

I'm looking to swap whatever people need for some sample answers - I have most of them but looking for:

EU - March 11-March 12
Tort - Oct 11-Mar 12
Company - March 12

If anyone has these & is willing to swap I can send you any other sample answers/grids you need - apart from the above I have almost everything else for all 8 subjects.

Thanks a million!

Ned_led16

Hi folks im looking for any of the following Criminal Law answers:
- Oct 2010
- March 2011
- Oct 2011
- March 2012

Ive if anyone needs!
Eu
Tort
Comp
Contract
Cons
Equity
Property

Thanks

sorchauna

Just wondering how people are getting on now its 6 weeks to go! This is my first sitting and now the nerves are kicking in as I am not as focused as I had hope to be.

How is everyone doing at this stage??

chops018

sorchauna wrote: »

Just wondering how people are getting on now its 6 weeks to go! This is my first sitting and now the nerves are kicking in as I am not as focused as I had hope to be.

How is everyone doing at this stage??

To be honest I'm not getting as much done as I would have liked either. This is my second sitting and I'm repeating the four subjects I did last March, not to make them sound more daunting than they are but they are very tough. I'm just trying to get through everything I can on the syllabus as anything really can come up, some parts are predictable but you really do need to know everything you can.

As I said above the study isn't going as planned, I'm a bit behind but I am going to ask for my hours in work to be cut for the next 5 or 6 weeks, if they can't then I'll have to leave as I do not want to be repeating these exams again and I really do need to have 4 or 5 full days for study each week.

sorchauna

Yeah its hard to comprehend the size of the course it really is massive and having a 50% pass rate and the 3/4 in your first sitting I think is very unfair because of the cost and time and not to emtnion alot of students may be doing this without any training contract lined up. But I suppose the bulk of the work is done in the last 6 weeks, I just need to keep pushing myself and try get so overwhelmed!

Must also try take a few weeks of work myself!

chops018

Hi guys,

I was going through sample answers for discharge from 2005-2011, and looked at the 2012 papers. It seems the only two that come up is breach and frustration.

Safe to assume performance and agreement can be left out? They are straight forward enough anyway.

sorchauna

Safe to assume performance and agreement can be left out? They are straight forward enough anyway.[/QUOTE]

Im leaving out agreement myself but will cover part performance and substanial performance distinction to be on the safe side.

chops018

sorchauna wrote: »

Safe to assume performance and agreement can be left out? They are straight forward enough anyway.

Im leaving out agreement myself but will cover part performance and substanial performance distinction to be on the safe side.[/QUOTE]

I have part performance covered. Just performance with regard discharge. We really can leave very little out I know but surely one or two things like this that haven't come up would be ok.

sorchauna

I agree but I do find when I am going through my detailed notes being able to cross out irrelvant stuff here and there so I like to pretend that this helps. Hopefully I can do the same for mistake which I am going through at the moment!

Procrastastudy

Any SC ruling on Clayton Love upcoming that anyone is aware of please?

Many Thanks!

ryan606

If anyone has any City Colleges sample answers for Constitutional Law (or any subject really!) could they pm me please! I have Griffith College ones for most years for all subjects to trade, Thanks!

Ned_led16

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two offences: thanks

Assault causing harm.
3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

18.—(1) Any person who assaults any person with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence shall be guilty of an offence.

chops018

Ned_led16 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two offences: thanks

Assault causing harm.
3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

18.—(1) Any person who assaults any person with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence shall be guilty of an offence.

Prob something most people learnt studying for their law degree..

Is the section 18 one from the Public Order Act? Not much of a difference really. See DPP (Travers) .v. Brennan (1998) where the judge said that the DPP may bring an action using section 18 of the Public Order Act or section 2/3 of the 1997 act. Remember before the 1997 act there was only common law assault.

chops018

Right, so I'm having trouble getting my head around the above rule.

Can anyone simplify it for me please? Head is wrecked with all the study so a quick explanation and an example would be fantastic.

The first limb of the test is fairly straightforward, it's more the second limb I'm having trouble with.

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

Right, so I'm having trouble getting my head around the above rule.

Can anyone simplify it for me please? Head is wrecked with all the study so a quick explanation and an example would be fantastic.

The first limb of the test is fairly straightforward, it's more the second limb I'm having trouble with.

Do you mean the special damages part? Isn't it just that if the breaching party was aware, or should have been aware, of special damage they are liable? It's almost the same test as negligence.

The situation in that case was that the millers had told them they were down to their last shaft (Hate it when that happens). Or have I that confused?

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Do you mean the special damages part? Isn't it just that if the breaching party was aware, or should have been aware, of special damage they are liable? It's almost the same test as negligence.

The situation in that case was that the millers had told them they were down to their last shaft (Hate it when that happens). Or have I that confused?

Yeah the special circumstances part. But it gets complicated, it's like if they didn't discuss or contemplate that such a circumstance could happen then it will be too remote and so the other party can't sue for damages, whereas if they had contemplated such a circumstance then they could sue for damages, as it wouldn't have been held to have been remote seeing as they discussed and contemplated it.

Hmmm, I think I'm getting the gist of it now, it's like in the Victoria Laundry case, where a boiler had to be delivered so the other party could wash clothes, it was late and so the plaintiff lost profit. The judge said that it was easily assumable that the plaintiff was running a business and needed the boiler. But they tried to sue for the lucrative contracts that they had with the Government, this was the problem, the defendants contested it was too remote, and they were successful as it was held to be a special circumstance and not ordinarily flowing from a breach of contract (the first limb of Hadley), and as they hadn't discussed or contemplated this then the defendant couldn't know, therefore the claim for damages was too remote. But the first claim i.e. for the profits lost was successful (as the defendant should have assumed that his breach would result in profits being lost - again first limb in Hadley).

Please someone let me know if I have got the right understanding? Even some of the following principles and definitions in further cases have confused me.

What do you think of the above Procrastastudy?

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

Yeah the special circumstances part. But it gets complicated, it's like if they didn't discuss or contemplate that such a circumstance could happen then it will be too remote and so the other party can't sue for damages, whereas if they had contemplated such a circumstance then they could sue for damages, as it wouldn't have been held to have been remote seeing as they discussed and contemplated it.

Hmmm, I think I'm getting the gist of it now, it's like in the Victoria Laundry case, where a boiler had to be delivered so the other party could wash clothes, it was late and so the plaintiff lost profit. The judge said that it was easily assumable that the plaintiff was running a business and needed the boiler. But they tried to sue for the lucrative contracts that they had with the Government, this was the problem, the defendants contested it was too remote, and they were successful as it was held to be a special circumstance and not ordinarily flowing from a breach of contract, and as they hadn't discussed or contemplated this then the defendant couldn't know, therefore the claim for damages was too remote. But the first claim i.e. for the profits lost was successful.

Please someone let me know if I have got the right understanding? Even some of the following principles and definitions in further cases have confused me.

What do you think of the above Procrastastudy?

My understanding of things is superficial to say the least - Victoria Laundry certainly rings a bell. My understanding of it was if the parties were involved in similar businesses then it would almost certainly not be too remote. The cases on it have left my tiny mind at this stage Sorry Chops!

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My understanding of things is superficial to say the least - Victoria Laundry certainly rings a bell. My understanding of it was if the parties were involved in similar businesses then it would almost certainly not be too remote. The cases on it have left my tiny mind at this stage Sorry Chops!

No problem. Any help with understanding this from anyone else would be appreciated, can't get my head around it.

Procrastastudy

Just dug out my notes - I'm afraid the text book went back to the library today!

I can see why my understanding is superficial - All I have is a brief note on it and Diamond v Campbell Jones [1961] Ch 22

The note is simply that the party much have actual knowledge to be liable. Not particularly helpful.

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Just dug out my notes - I'm afraid the text book went back to the library today!

I can see why my understanding is superficial - All I have is a brief note on it and Diamond v Campbell Jones [1961] Ch 22

The note is simply that the party much have actual knowledge to be liable. Not particularly helpful.

Thanks, I think I've a good understanding of it now.

When dealing with remoteness and damages one should turn to the rule in Hadley .v. Baxdale (1854), which sets out two limbs:

1. Damages which arise naturally i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself.
2. Damages which may not arise so naturally, but which may have been in the mind of the defendant because of specific communication by the plaintiff to the defendant and which may ordinarily flow from such a breach of contract.

Anything else claimed will be too remote.

So if a person enters into a contract as a courier to pick up something or get something that was fixed picked up and in usual circumstances an ordinary result would happen then the other party would be able to sue for damages through breach of contract arising from that natural consequence of the breach. But if something happened arising from the breach that wasn't natural and wasn't contemplated by the parties i.e. not in the defendants mind, then he will not be liable for such a consequence of that breach unless the plaintiff previously told him about such a special circumstance.

It was all explained again in the later case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) ltd .v. Newman Industries ltd (1949) here the judge asked whether the defendant had knowledge of the special circumstance, and where the defendant could not have had knowledge then it will be held to be too remote and here he could not have known about the lucrative contracts and so the plaintiff could not sue for damages over a loss of such contract as it was too remote, rather he could only sue for what naturally arose from such a breach which was the loss of profits.

I think that's the proper understanding of it, I'll stand corrected if anyone knows it's wrong.

sorchauna

chops018 wrote: »

I think that's the proper understanding of it, I'll stand corrected if anyone knows it's wrong.

I think about is as damges are recoverable for losses which were within reasonable contenplation of the parties at the time of the contract from either:

1. Imputed Notice
This will be hadley v baxendale, the heron II and victoria laundry v Newman.
Heron II refersto things like 'a real danger', 'a serious possibiltiy' or the loss muts be 'not unlikely' or 'liable to result'.

2. Actual Knowledge
Is the D's knowledge of special circumstances must be precise to this encourages parties to disclose clearly any likely exceptioanl lossess in advance.
cases are Simpson v L & NWR and Horne v Midland Railway.

The test or remoteness determines entitlement, not quantum!

lbcoconut

Would anyone be willing to give a very brief outline of what appeared on the Company Law paper-October 2011?

userlady

Hi, I am looking to do a sample answer swap. I am looking for Griffith College Tort and Constitutional? I have griffith EU, City colleges Constitutional to offer in return.

coco13

Ned_led16 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these two offences: thanks

Assault causing harm.
3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

18.—(1) Any person who assaults any person with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence shall be guilty of an offence.

The difference between the two offences here is the "Intention" element i.e. The Mens Rea. A prosecution under Section 18 will usually arise where the State can prove intention on the part of the wrong doer i.e. An intention to cause bodily harm or commit an indictable offence. Otherwise the prosecution would most likely be under Section 3, where the wrong doer has no intention to cause bodily harm but the harm is as a result of his actions (recklessness etc). You'd prob need to consider the elements of intention and recklessness etc here if you are comparing the two or giving advice re the two offences. Obviously the penalties will be different depending on which Section one is prosecuted under.
Hopefully that makes some sense!