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

bigtophat13

kasey0123 wrote: »

Leontjava was in relation to the alien order implemented by the minister that allowed an immigration officer to decide the duration of an Aliens stay in the country... this was outside the delegated authority in the aliens act and the courts saw it as making law, the ministers act were ultra vires. The other article in the order article 15 compelled an immigrant to produce birth cert/registration and the courts viewed this as within the delegated authority of the aliens act, they referred to the “ and other matters “ in the Aliens Act itself and held that compelling an alien to show proof of identity was not so far removed from the other provisions in the act so it was all good. There was Principle and policies basically.

Then larentiu they struck down s5 of the aliens act which gave the minister the power to grant a deportation order as unconstitutional, they held there was literally no guiding principles or policies in the act at all it simply said the minister had the authority to deport so they viewed it as giving too much power to the government... and they noted it was before City view press case so the Oireachtas weren’t aware of the P and P test at that time.
I think!

Hey, I've confused myself again. Laurentiu they said s5 was out of the question and outside the principles and policies test. A couple years later was leontjava and the order there was made pursuant to s5 and they ruled on it again and said the order was UV. How was it still in consideration? Was it not dead and gone?

Joanneom

nimcdona wrote: »

Any topics in particular to focus on for equity?

You'd be in a good position if you covered all trusts and injunctions, as I believe there is three trusts questions and one injunctions question, at least there was last sitting. Specific Performance, Rectification, Three Certainties, Trustees and DMC might be a good call too.

nimcdona

Joanneom wrote: »

You'd be in a good position if you covered all trusts and injunctions, as I believe there is three trusts questions and one injunctions question, at least there was last sitting. Specific Performance, Rectification, Three Certainties, Trustees and DMC might be a good call too.

Thank you

Smiley283

Doing contract next week and I had planned to borrow my friends consumer legislation but they said they can't find it! Would anyone be in a position that i could buy it off on Tuesday afternoon/Wednesday in the red cow?

If not, would I be screwed if I don't bother doing consumer protection?

kasey0123

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Hey, I've confused myself again. Laurentiu they said s5 was out of the question and outside the principles and policies test. A couple years later was leontjava and the order there was made pursuant to s5 and they ruled on it again and said the order was UV. How was it still in consideration? Was it not dead and gone?

hit the nail on the head, I decided to glaze over the blatant confusion and just learn it but I really don’t know because it said they struck it down in Larentiu... who knows. Maybe they just severed the sub section of s5 that dealt with the deportation orders.. hopefully haha

Sineaddh

Smiley283 wrote: »

Doing contract next week and I had planned to borrow my friends consumer legislation but they said they can't find it! Would anyone be in a position that i could buy it off on Tuesday afternoon/Wednesday in the red cow?

If not, would I be screwed if I don't bother doing consumer protection?

It’s only like €3 from the OPW and they ship it the next day! They did for me anyway

sbbyrne

Smiley283 wrote: »

Doing contract next week and I had planned to borrow my friends consumer legislation but they said they can't find it! Would anyone be in a position that i could buy it off on Tuesday afternoon/Wednesday in the red cow?

If not, would I be screwed if I don't bother doing consumer protection?

I just had a look and i can only find my 1893 Act, I can't find the later one sorry. if you would like the 1893 one i'll be in the Red Cow on Wednesday, you can have it as i've done contract!

FE1s2018

Could anyone share last October's constitutional exam report with me please?

Vegetarian2017

Anyone know briefly what came up in last constitutional sitting? Like did ag /president /interpretation/sop come up or wrhat we expecting?

bigtophat13

kasey0123 wrote: »

hit the nail on the head, I decided to glaze over the blatant confusion and just learn it but I really don’t know because it said they struck it down in Larentiu... who knows. Maybe they just severed the sub section of s5 that dealt with the deportation orders.. hopefully haha

I'm so glad I'm not going mad. I was reading over it again and again thinking to myself "S5......S5.....but wait, that's the same number!", ugh brain really is melting at this stage and Constitutional is an awful way to cap off 3 days with the size of it! Oh well though, lets hope he's kinder than last paper!

sapphire309

Something which I don't understand with the EU paper - Competition Law seems to be a massive topic, there's 60+ pages on in it my manual. But it seems to not be a guaranteed topic on the exam? Is the examiner just not a fan of competition law, or does my manual just place an unnecessary emphasis on it?

Smiley283

sbbyrne wrote: »

I just had a look and i can only find my 1893 Act, I can't find the later one sorry. if you would like the 1893 one i'll be in the Red Cow on Wednesday, you can have it as i've done contract!

I'm going to try get it posted out... I'll pm you tomorrow morning if they tell me that it won't be here by wednesday.

Thank you for the offer!

sbbyrne

Smiley283 wrote: »

I'm going to try get it posted out... I'll pm you tomorrow morning if they tell me that it won't be here by wednesday.

Thank you for the offer!

No problem, let me know, I can have a look here for the other one at the weeked if you're still stuck!

laurar2019

does any one have a list off what came up in contract in oct 18? would be very much appreciated xx

Fe1hayes

sapphire309 wrote: »

Something which I don't understand with the EU paper - Competition Law seems to be a massive topic, there's 60+ pages on in it my manual. But it seems to not be a guaranteed topic on the exam? Is the examiner just not a fan of competition law, or does my manual just place an unnecessary emphasis on it?

It comes up majority of the time , sometimes with say state aid or mergers
It’s come up like 12/15 last papers it says on the city college revision notes I have . I’ve covered because I find the first two essay qu can sometimes be tricky so want to be covered . I’ve also got it condensed to 8/9 pages 😂

Bbol

Does anyone have a sample answer for the misrep question that came up on the contract paper last year? Thinking she might repeat that again because she was so unhappy with it!

Smiley283

Bbol wrote: »

Does anyone have a sample answer for the misrep question that came up on the contract paper last year? Thinking she might repeat that again because she was so unhappy with it!

What was the essay title?

Bbol

Smiley283 wrote: »

What was the essay title?

It was question 5

In an action for misrepresentation (which has induced the misrepresentee to enter into a contract) is a Defence to say that the party who is seeking to rely on misrepresentation did not do their due diligence or make any effort to discover the truth?

And

How might a business rely on express contract terms so as to try protect itself against liability for misrepresentation?

Misrep is more or less one of the only things Ive left out cos there’s just so much material!! But I want to have an essay on this written up..

GF612

Anyone have any predictions for EU next week?

Smiley283

Bbol wrote: »

It was question 5

In an action for misrepresentation (which has induced the misrepresentee to enter into a contract) is a Defence to say that the party who is seeking to rely on misrepresentation did not do their due diligence or make any effort to discover the truth?

And

How might a business rely on express contract terms so as to try protect itself against liability for misrepresentation?

Misrep is more or less one of the only things Ive left out cos there’s just so much material!! But I want to have an essay on this written up..

Hi sorry I have had a look and I don't have a sample answer

laurar2019

would anyone be able to say what came up in the contract paper last oct? please please thanks you

Bbol

Smiley283 wrote: »

Hi sorry I have had a look and I don't have a sample answer

No prob, thanks for checking have you any advise for that paper, I find it impossible to get through it all! I’ve all my notes condensed but it’s still so much!!

Bbol

laurar2019 wrote: »

would anyone be able to say what came up in the contract paper last oct? please please thanks you

Problem q- Offer, invitation to treat, unilateral mistake, implied terms, exemption clause, consumer contracts, frustration, repudiatory breach and damages.

Essay- misrep, interpretation of terms, implied terms, penalty clause and consumer protection

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Could someone please briefly explain supervening impossibility with regard to the Doctrine of Cy-Pres?

Bbol

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Could someone please briefly explain supervening impossibility with regard to the Doctrine of Cy-Pres?

With supervening impossibility you don’t need to show general charitable intention where the charity seized to exist after the gift was made effective.

Where as initial impossibility- if impossible to apply the date the gift became effective (donor’s death)- you must then show General charitable intention

Fe12017

Hi all, if anybody has an up to date equity exam grid, or a last minute equity revision guide, I would really appreciate it. Cheers

Tommybojangles

I know post mortems are frowned upon but can anyone give a run down of what was expected on the Mallack v.Minister for justice question on constitutional? All I could do was quote Tierney v an post before and Kelly V Garda commissioner since but it what is the evidence of the 'watering-down' the question asked about?

lawless11

Tommybojangles wrote: »

I know post mortems are frowned upon but can anyone give a run down of what was expected on the Mallack v.Minister for justice question on constitutional? All I could do was quote Tierney v an post before and Kelly V Garda commissioner since but it what is the evidence of the 'watering-down' the question asked about?

Well I argued against the watering-down personally. Didn't have your two cases unfortunately (poor memory) but mentioned McEnery, and a new Conolly v An Bord Plenala one from 2018. I just took a stance on 'reasons are still required, don't think they've been watered' as part of the fair procedures. I might be totally wrong though.



On that note, I hope this was the last fe-1 exam for me! But with that Tort on monday, I'm not sure .

Smiley283

Bbol wrote: »

No prob, thanks for checking have you any advise for that paper, I find it impossible to get through it all! I’ve all my notes condensed but it’s still so much!!

I'm sitting it myself for the first time and unfortunately I havent any tips.. I've heard grannies lighting candles is helpful ha

Tommybojangles

lawless11 wrote: »

Well I argued against the watering-down personally. Didn't have your two cases unfortunately (poor memory) but mentioned McEnery, and a new Conolly v An Bord Plenala one from 2018. I just took a stance on 'reasons are still required, don't think they've been watered' as part of the fair procedures. I might be totally wrong though.



On that note, I hope this was the last fe-1 exam for me! But with that Tort on monday, I'm not sure .

Cheers! Ya I totally disagreed with it off the back of Kelly. Assume there must be some contrary evidence though!