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

lawless11

Were the principles of effectiveness & equivalency ever on the past papers? I have like two poor cases on that...

Tony_TwoLegs

lawless11 wrote: »

Were the principles of effectiveness & equivalency ever on the past papers? I have like two poor cases on that...

March 2017 for the first time I think. So 3 papers ago from my grid. I abandoned it as my revisionary notes on it confused me.... despite the fact I wrote them....

Freckley201

Question on indirect effect, since I'm after confusing myself!

For EU, the Direct Effect/State Liability question is usually always where

(1) directive has not been implemented
(2) Joe Bloggs does something against the directive that gives him a criminal conviction and causes Mary some injury

The question asks if Mary can get compensation from Joe Bloggs and/or the state.

I know directives are only vertically effective but surely Mary can rely on indirect effect to get compensation off Joe also, i.e. where the courts have to interpret the law based on the directive? Wasn't this the case in Van Colson?

The sample answer I have basically says Mary can only sue the state so I'm not sure if I'm wrong.

bigtophat13

Freckley201 wrote: »

Question on indirect effect, since I'm after confusing myself!

For EU, the Direct Effect/State Liability question is usually always where

(1) directive has not been implemented
(2) Joe Bloggs does something against the directive that gives him a criminal conviction and causes Mary some injury

The question asks if Mary can get compensation from Joe Bloggs and/or the state.

I know directives are only vertically effective but surely Mary can rely on indirect effect to get compensation off Joe also, i.e. where the courts have to interpret the law based on the directive? Wasn't this the case in Van Colson?

The sample answer I have basically says Mary can only sue the state so I'm not sure if I'm wrong.

Look up Kopinghuis Nijmegen for the criminal aspect and Arcaro for the non criminal aspect. Essentially they think it's unfair to get a criminal charge for something that wasn't implemented and it has been said they wouldn't make you liable where non criminal but the Centrosteel decision has called that into question.

Becks63976

Could someone please briefly explain the relevance of calpak v commission in relation to article 263 TFEU.

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Look up Kopinghuis Nijmegen for the criminal aspect and Arcaro for the non criminal aspect. Essentially they think it's unfair to get a criminal charge for something that wasn't implemented and it has been said they wouldn't make you liable where non criminal but the Centrosteel decision has called that into question.

Damn, all the cases I had no idea they existed. #soreadynot

jus_me

Can anyone explain Kecks impact on fmog

Tony_TwoLegs

jus_me wrote: »

Can anyone explain Kecks impact on fmog

Keck drew a line between what it said were "product rules", ie those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labeling, packaging – which would be prohibited under article 34, and "selling arrangements" which were considered not to be caught by the ambit of 34

olliej

GingerAleSnail wrote: »

Same boat, have been reading this horror for two months, still can't repeat any of it. There's just far too much to take in

I did my work for EU (or so I thought) and focused on my other 2 subjects the past fortnight but somehow I completely overlooked the fact I had notes written out on only 2 topics for EU and only discovered this Today!!?!!

I still cannot believe I managed that. So now, in true fashion of denial, I'm going to bed and pretending like I'm not walking into my funeral tomorrow.

Goodnight and good luck folks.

BeepBoopBot

Anybody have a democratic deficit essay they can throw my way?
There isn't enough sudafed and coffee in the world to get me through tonight lol

FE1 Lady

Oh lads will we all be looking at one another tomorrow morning in the exam hall? No cramming could prepare you for this....

Christ I have forgot everything it’s as if I’m reading it for the first time again!!

Freckley201

What are the chances of an overnight IREXIT so I won't have to sit the exam tomorrow?

sapphire309

Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?

lawdedaw

Honest question but is there anyone out there who genuinely feels confident about the study they have done for EU and for the exam tomorrow? If such a person exists, I really really commend you haha

david_etc

I know this is probably a bit late but I noticed in one of the grind school manuals (can't say which one obviously) that they have made a very confusing mistake in respect of defences to Article 34 TFEU (quantitative restrictions and MEQRs).

Basically, the manual says that the defences to indistinctly applicable measures (Cassis di Dijon) are the "mandatory requirements" and Article 36 defences. This is wrong.

The defences for distinctly applicable measures are listed under Article 36.
The defences for indistinctly applicable measures are the "mandatory requirements", listed in Cassis.

This is a somewhat artificial split (as they both cover things like public health) but I thought I'd note this in case that helps anyone.

Fe1andDone

Madonna you're brilliant! Thanks so much!

lawless11

lawdedaw wrote: »

Honest question but is there anyone out there who genuinely feels confident about the study they have done for EU and for the exam tomorrow? If such a person exists, I really really commend you haha

I wonder aha. It must exist I reckon. I feel totally lost and incapable :-D. So I'm not one of them. Feeling like I know nothing (like Jon).

bigtophat13

david_etc wrote: »

I know this is probably a bit late but I noticed in one of the grind school manuals (can't say which one obviously) that they have made a very confusing mistake in respect of defences to Article 34 TFEU (quantitative restrictions and MEQRs).

Basically, the manual says that the defences to indistinctly applicable measures (Cassis di Dijon) are the "mandatory requirements" and Article 36 defences. This is wrong.

The defences for distinctly applicable measures are listed under Article 36.
The defences for indistinctly applicable measures are the "mandatory requirements", listed in Cassis.

This is a somewhat artificial split (as they both cover things like public health) but I thought I'd note this in case that helps anyone.

Understandable spot but they're not wrong, Wurmser case clarified that for 34 distinctly you only have 36 but for indistinctly you have both avenues

GingerAleSnail

lawless11 wrote: »

I wonder aha. It must exist I reckon. I feel totally lost and incapable :-D. So I'm not one of them. Feeling like I know nothing (like Jon).

Exhausted, cannot make connections or sense at this stage

david_etc

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Understandable spot but they're not wrong, Wurmser case clarified that for 34 distinctly you only have 36 but for indistinctly you have both avenues

Oh, thank you for that. Weird that my manual didn't make a big deal of that. Thanks for correcting me.

ArthurDayne

sapphire309 wrote: »

Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?

Trustees Duties is a very straightforward topic -- only Duty to exercise proper discretion, duty not to make a profit, and duty to invest ever come up really.
Constructive Trusts isn't long and is due to pop up.  Just focus on Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance and New Model Constructive trusts -- these are the only topics which have come up for it.
Aside from those -- Secret Trusts might be a due a run out and is a short chapter.

Jenosul

sapphire309 wrote: »

Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?

Trusteeship
Injunctions
Maximums might be half a question
I did undue influence wives and bank only really comes up in exam papers. Not sure if it will come up but fingers crossed.
Like you I picked and must cram charitable trust cu pres. 3 certainties

ðŸ™ðŸ™ðŸ™ good luck 🀠to everyone!

Tony_TwoLegs

Call me a cynic, but why must we sit an EU Law exam. There's merit in the other 7. Maybe that's the sleep deprived side of me lashing out .... Administrative law would be more useful as an 8th (mandatory at Kings Inn)

jewels652

Best of luck to those sitting EU this morning.

Vegetarian2017

Best of luck everyone! It feels sooo good to be freeðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Not long for you all now

sapphire309

Would anyone have a sample answer on Tracing for Equity they could share with me? Just realised my notes are only a page and a half long and barely covers the general principles

Supermax1988

sapphire309 wrote: »

Would anyone have a sample answer on Tracing for Equity they could share with me? Just realised my notes are only a page and a half long and barely covers the general principles

I could also do with this if any kind soul was willing to share!

Roisin Phelan

Hi guys,

Hope all going well for everyone!

Last day tomorrow!

Have the following covered for equity, others thoughts would be helpful, thanks 🙂

UI
Injunctions - interloc & QT
Tracing
New model constructive trusts
Estoppel
Express trusts
Resulting trusts

Going to attempt cy pres today.

MagicThree18

I'm feeling the nerves ahead of Equity tomorrow, but also taking comfort knowing how well I did on my last attempt, in October 2017, with such a poor effort.

I did a very good problem question on Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions, an okay problem question on Joint-Accounts, an average, but very small, essay on Defences to Specific Performance, a poor effort on Anton Piller Orders where I only had the Anton Piller case/test, then I finished up with a very poor effort on Tracing, where I just basically explained what it was in general terms without reference to any case law. I got 42%.

The old FE1 cliche is that you need five good questions and, in my experience at least, that's doubly true for Equity.

We can do it!

Roisin Phelan

Hi guys,

Hope all going well for everyone!

Last day tomorrow!

Have the following covered for equity, others thoughts would be helpful, thanks 🙂

UI
Injunctions - interloc & QT
Tracing
New model constructive trusts
Estoppel
Express trusts
Resulting trusts

Going to attempt cy pres today.