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

Doser

Long shot, but anybody have a Companies Act? Mine hasnt arrived and I've been using the Bloomsbury Professional Guide while studying. I'm not going learning off the SAP ques and such if I dont have one, and dont want to hold out for it to arrive tomorrow!

Olliepollie

lawless11 wrote: »

Strict liability, Rylands & trespass I have in my notes.

I thought Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc changed Rylands to only reasonably foreseeable damage?

Freaking out a little now haha

lawless11

Olliepollie wrote: »

I thought Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc changed Rylands to only reasonably foreseeable damage?

Freaking out a little now haha

You are probably right aha. Rylands is a weird one.

bigtophat13

Olliepollie wrote: »

I thought Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc changed Rylands to only reasonably foreseeable damage?

Freaking out a little now haha

lawless11 wrote: »

You are probably right aha. Rylands is a weird one.

Shall we stick with Rylands being "inconsistently treated by the courts" ?

I'm having some panic moments, what would strict liability be relevant to in tort? Employer's liability, a bit of products, what else?

iamanengine

So. Many. Topics.

This is tough work!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

So. Many. Topics.

This is tough work!

Haven't given everything the once over and still haven't left home yet! Will be a late one which is not what I planned

Olliepollie

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Shall we stick with Rylands being "inconsistently treated by the courts" ?

I'm having some panic moments, what would strict liability be relevant to in tort? Employer's liability, a bit of products, what else?

Maybe vicarious liability? Cause the employer is liable through no fault of his own... not sure if that might be it's one separate thing though.

So many liabilities... so little time haha

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Haven't given everything the once over and still haven't left home yet! Will be a late one which is not what I planned

Yep if I get 5 hours sleep it will be a luxury at this point!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Yep if I get 5 hours sleep it will be a luxury at this point!

I'm thinking 2-6

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I'm thinking 2-6

I'll hopefully be treating myself to 1-6 :pac:

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

I'll hopefully be treating myself to 1-6 :pac:

Spoil yourself!

bigtophat13

Olliepollie wrote: »

Maybe vicarious liability? Cause the employer is liable through no fault of his own... not sure if that might be it's one separate thing though.

So many liabilities... so little time haha

Just read in nuisance if there's actual damage to property and not just enjoyment if they can show causation and the damage its strict!

bigtophat13

Has anyone done public nuisance or is it being left out? Apologies for the coffee induced spam.

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Has anyone done public nuisance or is it being left out? Apologies for the coffee induced spam.

I've learnt 6 cases just incase

Thomas v NUM
Mullane v Forester
Smith v Wilson
Boyd v GN Rly
Cunningham v McGrath Brothers
Herring v Metropolitan Board of Works

laurar2019

main cases for company??? freaking out as i know NOTHING

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

I've learnt 6 cases just incase

Thomas v NUM
Mullane v Forester
Smith v Wilson
Boyd v GN Rly
Cunningham v McGrath Brothers
Herring v Metropolitan Board of Works

Thanks a lot, I shall save these for the fear late tonight alongside animals I'm gonna learn 5-10 cases for!

For nuisance are the damages those which are reasonably foreseeable ? So Wagon Mound?

lawless11

iamanengine wrote: »

I've learnt 6 cases just incase

Thomas v NUM
Mullane v Forester
Smith v Wilson
Boyd v GN Rly
Cunningham v McGrath Brothers
Herring v Metropolitan Board of Works

What's Smith v Wilson about? Have indeed only the other 5

iamanengine

lawless11 wrote: »

What's Smith v Wilson about? Have indeed only the other 5

Elderly farmer had his path blocked which prevented him from getting to the market. It was considered special circumstances because he was old and couldn't get around easily.

You don't really need it if you have the rest!

LawGirl3434

lawless11 wrote: »

What's Smith v Wilson about? Have indeed only the other 5

Also Hasset v O Laughlin nice one to throw in - pile of stones on a highway amounted to public nuisance

Olliepollie

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Also Hasset v O Laughlin nice one to throw in - pile of stones on a highway amounted to public nuisance

I haven't heard of that one! Sounds interesting... is that because of malice or just the nature of the act was a nuisance?

channing90

Company law
Directors duties
Slp
s212
Receivership
Liquidation
Restrictions
Examinership
share transfer
Dispostions
kinda know fraudulent trading
Is there anything specific i should cover now ?

LawGirl3434

Olliepollie wrote: »

I haven't heard of that one! Sounds interesting... is that because of malice or just the nature of the act was a nuisance?

That is a good question - all I have in my notes is not every public obstruction will be a nuisance, but depending on circumstances it can be. So that’s all Ray Ray is getting if he asks about it

Olliepollie

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

That is a good question - all I have in my notes is not every public obstruction will be a nuisance, but depending on circumstances it can be. So that’s all Ray Ray is getting if he asks about it

Hahaha! And he deserves no more!

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

That is a good question - all I have in my notes is not every public obstruction will be a nuisance, but depending on circumstances it can be. So that’s all Ray Ray is getting if he asks about it

If you saw friel I cannot think of both a less applicable but at the same time perfect pet name

laurar2019

channing90 wrote: »

Company law
Directors duties
Slp
s212
Receivership
Liquidation
Restrictions
Examinership
share transfer
Dispostions
kinda know fraudulent trading
Is there anything specific i should cover now ?

Whats dispositions?? which chapter is that??

Vegetarian2017

hi all

Tort has the disclosure test changed for non electve surgery re montgomery

Vegetarian2017

bigtophat13 wrote:

In what case would one use Polemis analysis of damages in tort? Trespass to the person and land for one. What else? I've read conflicting stuff about Rylands, anywhere else I'm missing?

All intent torts yes trespass and ryland although that strict liability

iamanengine

Adequately covered so far:

Rylands/Trespass to Land/Nuisance
Trespass to Person
General Negligence
Occupier's Liability
Passing Off
Liability for Animals

Left:

Defamation
Medical Negligence
Pure Economic Loss/NM
Nervous Shock
Vicarious
Products

Help

channing90

Daly29 wrote: »

Thanks a mill for that. Seems somewhat similar. Think I've covered what I see as most likely qs so I'm guesing I'm not going to have a Eureaka moment. Doubt the examiner is trying to summon his inner rain man looking at exam grid patterns when he is setting the exam. Probably just take a stab at going over one other and hope my ones come up..... Time to get stuck into Tort in an hour or so.

laurar2019 wrote: »

Whats dispositions?? which chapter is that??

Dispositions of companies assets, pre and post commencement orders, last chapter in my manuel anyways

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Adequately covered so far:

Rylands/Trespass to Land/Nuisance
Trespass to Person
General Negligence
Occupier's Liability
Passing Off
Liability for Animals

Left:

Defamation
Medical Negligence
Pure Economic Loss/NM
Nervous Shock
Vicarious
Products

Help

What happened to the 15 minute revision sessions? XD I've occupiers, damages, defamation, passing off, animals left but we'll get there!

On a general note, what are people's thoughts on highlighting cases? Are you helping them so they help you or do you look silly and they'll dock you? Paranoia now!