FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sarcastra

rick flair wrote: »

Guys

excuse the spelling.bit pisshhhtttt

Hey Rick, if you were perusing the FE1 exam thread on a Saturday night, I'm not surprised you took to the drink! I'm sure it made it more entertaining

32minutes

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Pretty sure, it doesn't matter what route you took toward a breach of duty, ie. basic negligence, RvF, animal negligence, Road Traffic acts, Breach of Stat duty.

The question specifically asked for a discussion of Causation so no matter how you attributed fault among the various parties I'm of the opinion the real question was how the courts approach factual and legal causation within the multiple causes. i.e. Bonnington, McGhee, NAI's, Contrib Liab.
So as long as following the discussion of any of the above faults of the actors you discussed the approach to the multiple causes you should be fine.

i think id disagree slightly there, i think the important aspect was causation but not multiple causes so much as intervening acts, there was no culmination of factors like in mcgee and no supervening independant cause like in wilshire v essex.
in reality the best arguement for the landowner to make would be that his actions resulted in some liability but that subsequent acts and contributory neligence absolved him of most of the liability

rick flair

Thanks very much for the link , I had to have a gargle last night to ease the pressure (did not work) watched Ricky Gervais for a while on C4. That brought a tear to my eye , but now its back to Ramsden and Dyson et al unfortunately.

rick flair

Can any help, does Cypres only kick in if there is no residuary clause in a will. If the Charitable object fails in the will , does it not pass to the residual clause and then if there is no Residual clause to other Charitable purposes (depending on the test).Or does the Residual clause come into it at all.

Thanks

Gary

newby09

I looked through past papers and although i can do 5 or more qs in most papers there is one or 2 where i get caught out. I was looking at octobers paper 2007/8? with the question relating to betty who is terribly ill, jane and mary and the title deeds in a box. Its q 1 on whichever paper.

just wondering what topic this is on???? Secret Trusts??
other than this paper i can only find 1 other horrible one for me in the past 6 or 7 exams so if anyone knows what the topic is i would be grateful as i prob wont sleep well with the thought of a repeat paper appearing

thanks for your help

Jev/N

rick flair wrote: »

Can any help, does Cypres only kick in if there is no residuary clause in a will. If the Charitable object fails in the will , does it not pass to the residual clause and then if there is no Residual clause to other Charitable purposes (depending on the test).Or does the Residual clause come into it at all.

Thanks

Gary

Cy Pres operates where there is either initial impossiblity, or supervening failure, of a charitable trust. In the former case, a general charitable intention must be proven. If this is proven, the residuary clause has nothing to do with it. In the latter, this isn't necessary and again the residuary clause doesn't have anything to do with it either.

The only cases it would occur would be where a general charitable intention couldn't be proven or where there was an express term in the will whereby it would fall into the residue if the trust failed.

Charitable trusts are not always created by will BTW

newby09 wrote: »

I looked through past papers and although i can do 5 or more qs in most papers there is one or 2 where i get caught out. I was looking at octobers paper 2007/8? with the question relating to betty who is terribly ill, jane and mary and the title deeds in a box. Its q 1 on whichever paper.

just wondering what topic this is on???? Secret Trusts??
other than this paper i can only find 1 other horrible one for me in the past 6 or 7 exams so if anyone knows what the topic is i would be grateful as i prob wont sleep well with the thought of a repeat paper appearing

thanks for your help

That question is on Donatio Mortis Causa

Chinner

Hi,

Question 8 on reckless and fraudulent trading was my last question on Thursday.

I didn't know it all that well but looking back on it, does anyone know if it was a requirement to write extensively on Hefferon Kearns? I wrote a few lines on it but spoke mostly about fradulent trading, and cases like Aluminium Fabricators, Kellys Carpetdrome, Hunting Lodges, Contract Packaging, although I'm not sure they were relevant. Any thoughts?

Wrote a load on the s297 and 297A obviously.

Mentioned a few cases about failure to keep proper books of account etc too but that's definitely irrelevant.

lougem

sunnyside wrote: »

I'd be delighted if someone could explain this. If the case couldn't be tried in the District court isn't that it, end of story but a paragraph would explain that. I think they might have wanted us to mention that constitutional issues can't be dealt with in the District court but I didn't think of that until after leaving the exam hall.

Did creating a criminal offence have anything to do with it? A judicial power issue, I'm thinking not because it was a court that would be trying the offence anyway not a tribunal but identifying the issues really was difficult.

I thought the problem might have been about Cabinet Confidentiality but I didnt see a problem with the Court as the fine was only 10,000. I think that's below the limit set for the District Ct.

I didnt try this Q though, so I'm not sure at all!

lougem

Paul1979 wrote: »

lougem wrote: »

Yep I was surprised that causation in negligence was only touched on in one question that was mainly about Rylands v Fletcher. Apart from that there was nothing else about negligence unless you count professional negligence. I would have expected either a general negligence problem or an essay Q on causation.

are u talking about the question regarding the car crash and the possible causes?

in my view that was a question regarding the multiple causation test set out in cases such a Bonnington/Essex area authority/mc gee, and whether or not causation can be inferred when there is a myriad of possible causes (such as a water leak, speed, dog, and marys own contributory negligence)...i could be wrong though

You're probably right, as the accumulation criterium of RvF might not be satisfied by the fact that it was a burst pipe. If it was a water tank or something maybe that would be different. I dont know!! But it's only my first time doing them so I've resigned myself to failing at this stage!

Dandelion6

lougem wrote: »

I thought the problem might have been about Cabinet Confidentiality but I didnt see a problem with the Court as the fine was only 10,000. I think that's below the limit set for the District Ct.

I think it's €1,000 isn't it? Anyway there was a five-year prison sentence which is definitely too much for a summary trial.

Didn't do the question either though!

lougem

I think it's €1,000 isn't it? Anyway there was a five-year prison sentence which is definitely too much for a summary trial.

Didn't do the question either though![/quote]

Woops so it is, I only really paid attention to the HC jurisdiction in my study.

Anyone doing EU tomorrow? What you covering?

legallad

Equity paper today was a breeze, i know fe1s are not meant to be predictable put so called "due" topics did actually come up!

Just wondering how people approached Q6 take on undue influence?

Jev/N

legallad wrote: »

Equity paper today was a breeze, i know fe1s are not meant to be predictable put so called "due" topics did actually come up!

Just wondering how people approached Q6 take on undue influence?

Didn't think it was a breeze but certainly most topics due to come up, did.

In relation to that question I just addressed the two categories of undue influence, actual (very briefly) and presumed (class 2B only) in relation to what is needed to be proven for the presumption to arise and how that presumption can be rebutted (notice,advice etc.). I just told the bank to ensure all these things are followed through on and that if they were, this should ensure the presumption is rebutted should a case arise.

A bit annoyed how I mixed up McPhail v Doulton and Burroughs v Philcox in the 3 certainties question but hopefully she won't penalise me too much as all the info is there, just in relation to the opposite case

glee123

didnt do q 6 - making you do it in guidelines turned me off.

granted the prediction "due up" topics were there but there were some v specific slants to the q's in some instances.
like with mareva. just happy its over

certainly not a breeze for me tho

sunnyside

Is this fe1 thing only possible with loads of advance perparation? Is it possible to pass with some last minute cramming (mostly learning things for the first time). This is what I'm doing for criminal, spent loads of time on EU and Constitutional. Am I wasting my time? The standard seems to be too high for this to work.

vote4pedro

sunnyside wrote: »

Is this fe1 thing only possible with loads of advance perparation? Is it possible to pass with some last minute cramming (mostly learning things for the first time). This is what I'm doing for criminal, spent loads of time on EU and Constitutional. Am I wasting my time? The standard seems to be too high for this to work.

Nope it's definitely possible so don't give up on it. You won't have time to do the entire course for the first time, but if you leave out whatever you can, and get lucky in what comes up on the day, then it can definitely be done over a few days. If you have a law degree and are used to studying for law exams you could easily learn 3 or 4 topics a day, do that and you'd have 10 or so going in to Criminal on Wed and you could very well get lucky and get 5 questions on those. Don't give up yet, it'll be a tough few days but it's possible.

legallad

sunnyside wrote: »

Is this fe1 thing only possible with loads of advance perparation? Is it possible to pass with some last minute cramming (mostly learning things for the first time). This is what I'm doing for criminal, spent loads of time on EU and Constitutional. Am I wasting my time? The standard seems to be too high for this to work.

definitely dont give up. You are better to have tried and failed than never to have tired at all, as vote for pedro said it will be a tough two days but luck plays a huge part. Ive heard of people who have gone into exams on 6 topics and passed.

best of luck

32minutes

legallad wrote: »

definitely dont give up. You are better to have tried and failed than never to have tired at all, as vote for pedro said it will be a tough two days but luck plays a huge part. Ive heard of people who have gone into exams on 6 topics and passed.

best of luck

true

luck will play a part as far as questions are concerned and if your memory holds up to the task on the day then it is possible, sometimes i think a good cram can even be better for these particular exams.
speaking only from experience in a law degree, there was no module over 4 years that i failled to learn completely from 2 weeks before the date of the exams and pass.
anyway if you do end of failling and have to repeat then the experience wont have done you any harm

sarcastra

lougem wrote: »

Anyone doing EU tomorrow? What you covering?

Yes, doing EU unfortunately. I'm covering the following (theoretically):

Free movement of goods
Free movement of people
A.82
Direct Effect/State Liability
Supremacy
A.141
A.86
Customs Duties
Institutions
A.226-228
A.234

But sure I've only four of them learnt so far and it's nearly 8pm!

lougem

sarcastra wrote: »

Yes, doing EU unfortunately. I'm covering the following (theoretically):

Free movement of goods
Free movement of people
A.82
Direct Effect/State Liability
Supremacy
A.141
A.86
Customs Duties
Institutions
A.226-228
A.234

But sure I've only four of them learnt so far and it's nearly 8pm!

Dont worry I've still got loads to do- think I'll be going to bed late tonight! I'm doing:

Direct Effect
Supremacy
Article 82 and 81
State Liability
Citizenship & Workers
Institutions

Might do a case note if I have to. I think Direct Effect is more likely to come up than Supremacy- I havent actually come across a Q on that yet, have you? This is my fourth exam so I dont care anymore!!

sarcastra

lougem wrote: »

Dont worry I've still got loads to do- think I'll be going to bed late tonight! I'm doing:

Direct Effect
Supremacy
Article 82 and 81
State Liability
Citizenship & Workers
Institutions

Might do a case note if I have to. I think Direct Effect is more likely to come up than Supremacy- I havent actually come across a Q on that yet, have you? This is my fourth exam so I dont care anymore!!

Aye, think you're right about Direct Effect being more likely. I think I saw Supremacy in one past paper but I could be wrong? It'd be a nice wee question if it did come up. I did notes on A.81 but my brain is refusing to look at them, they're too evil...but maybe I should. I'm at the not caring stage here too myself. The wall has been well and truly hit. EU is the devil anyway.

legallad

just wondering with regard to criminal law: for s.4 of the non fatal offences against the persons act what are the confines of the serious harm definition, as in I know it includes serious disfigurement, substantial loss of bodys mobility etc but does it include say if i broke your jaw with a punch or knocked you out? Where does the line stop? Cheers

32minutes

sarcastra wrote: »

Aye, think you're right about Direct Effect being more likely. I think I saw Supremacy in one past paper but I could be wrong? It'd be a nice wee question if it did come up. I did notes on A.81 but my brain is refusing to look at them, they're too evil...but maybe I should. I'm at the not caring stage here too myself. The wall has been well and truly hit. EU is the devil anyway.

EU most definitely is the devil, i really wish id voted No now

Dandelion6

legallad wrote: »

just wondering with regard to criminal law: for s.4 of the non fatal offences against the persons act what are the confines of the serious harm definition, as in I know it includes serious disfigurement, substantial loss of bodys mobility etc but does it include say if i broke your jaw with a punch or knocked you out? Where does the line stop? Cheers

I don't think there is a fixed line as such but I would guess those would go under S.3 instead, if there is no permanent damage or the person doesn't spend months in hospital.

CYA in the exam though and just say it will probably be only a S.3 charge ....

Jamie-b

Hi, I have the sale of goods act 1893 here. In my Grffith manual it says on page 199 section 14(4) deals with fitness for purpose and gives a big quote that is different to what is in my act. Have I the wrong one??? I understand it is amended

Jev/N

Jamie-b wrote: »

Hi, I have the sale of goods act 1893 here. In my Grffith manual it says on page 199 section 14(4) deals with fitness for purpose and gives a big quote that is different to what is in my act. Have I the wrong one??? I understand it is amended

S.14(4) - basically states that the seller will not be liable where the purchaser chooses not to rely, or indeed it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the vendor's skills or judgment.

I don't have the act here as I'm not bothered with it for the exam but that's in the manual

Jamie-b

Hi, thanks, but my questions was really whether I have the wrong legislation. S14(4) of mine says nothing of the sort. somethinbg similar in 14(1) but not same words

Jev/N

Where did you get the legislation?

Jamie-b

In the Government publication office in town just off Dawson street

Jev/N

I thought that should include the amendments as a result of the 1980 Act?

Here it is anyway, taken from Irishstatutebook.ie

10.—For sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1893 there shall be substituted the sections set out in the following Table:
....
..
.
14(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.