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

Leraf

lawlad101 wrote: »

I've had to cut out so much

Offer and Acceptance
Consideration
Estoppel
Terms
Exemption clauses
Consumer (barely)
Duress
Undue influence
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Frustration
Damages

I cut duress and undue and am only reading through damages
I’m so wrecked I can’t take anything in

nmurphy1441

There were two very recent decisions regarding illegal contracts and champerty in the past 2 years. Investment funds funding litigation....

lawlad101

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

There were two very recent decisions regarding illegal contracts and champerty in the past 2 years. Investment funds funding litigation....

Whoops

nmurphy1441

lawlad101 wrote: »

Whoops

They mightn’t even come up but you’d never know! Persona Digital Telephony v Min for Public Expenditure 2017 & SPV Optimal Osus v HSBC International 2018. Both maintenance/champerty contacts, Irish courts don’t care for them. Might be nice just to glance over, pretty straight forward!

lawlad101

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

They mightn’t even come up but you’d never know! Persona Digital Telephony v Min for Public Expenditure 2017 & SPV Optimal Osus v HSBC International 2018. Both maintenance/champerty contacts, Irish courts don’t care for them. Might be nice just to glance over, pretty straight forward!

Thanks for this!

LawGirl3434

lawlad101 wrote: »

Thanks for this!

Yeah personally wouldn’t stress on this - in the former Denham J literally said nothing she could do a matter for the oiteachtas if going to change

I think if illegality is going to come up it would be under statute, more meaty but just my opinion

BemusedKettle

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Yeah personally wouldn’t stress on this - in the former Denham J literally said nothing she could do a matter for the oiteachtas if going to change

I think if illegality is going to come up it would be under statute, more meaty but just my opinion

In Persona they seemed to say that champerty is illegal by virtue of statue, really really old statute. That confused me

LawGirl3434

BemusedKettle wrote: »

In Persona they seemed to say that champerty is illegal by virtue of statue, really really old statute. That confused me

Have they nothing better to do ughhhh

sapphire309

Perhaps a really stupid question, but is it correct to refer to the 'CJEU' throughout the exam? Or the 'ECJ'? Obviously with the exception of in an institutions Q involving the courts or in a judicial review Q where you would need to distinguish

Lovestolisten

I wonder 🀔 seen that proprietary estoppel didn’t come up in Equity would promissory be thrown into Contract ?
I notice the examiners try to avoid overlaps

holliek

What are people learning regards consumer protection?

Lovestolisten

holliek wrote: »

What are people learning regards consumer protection?

On revision I notice it quite often seems to be a commercial transaction Q and based on Sec 14 of SOG

That’s just on my quick review but I only went back 5-6 papers

user115

That point was picked up in examiners reports he said not to worry he would assume they are interchangable, also said that about people using EEC provisions rather than TFEU, he accepts both and won't penalize

sapphire309 wrote: »

Perhaps a really stupid question, but is it correct to refer to the 'CJEU' throughout the exam? Or the 'ECJ'? Obviously with the exception of in an institutions Q involving the courts or in a judicial review Q where you would need to distinguish

jamesob123

EU

Hi guys,

What would be the best few cases to learn off for the case note question?

Really stuck for a last topic at this stage!

Thanks

Wonderstruck

Shout out to the council for doing sewage works outside my house all night! Best of luck everyone!

kasey0123

Does anyone know how late the office opens to hand in legislation is it 1 or 1:30?

starfishxxo

kasey0123 wrote: »

Does anyone know how late the office opens to hand in legislation is it 1 or 1:30?

It's supposed to be 1pm, but in my experience they're often still there as late as 2!

Wonderstruck

Estoppel came up!!!!!! Thanks for the tip! Best of luck with EU!

leavingcert17

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Estoppel came up!!!!!! Thanks for the tip! Best of luck with EU!

What else came up?

Bbol

Does any know how tough the contract paper is marked?

Wonderstruck

leavingcert17 wrote: »

What else came up?

Hey sorry I'll post when im back home if no-one does before me I have hand cramps

sapphire309

Can somebody explain to me the position of student workers? I know in Grzelczyk that the court found that a Belgian student in the same position as the French student applicant would have been granted the subsistence allowance, and so this was found to be discriminatory on grounds of his nationality. But I also have in my notes that the case of Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland is authority for the fact that non-national student workers aren't entitled to full social advantages as a fully fledged worker under EU law.

Does this mean that if the non-national-student is working part-time through university, he won't be entitled to all the social and tax advantages of a non-national person (not a student), but that if he is not working at all and is simply attending uni, he will be entitled to student loans the same as a national-student?

Bbol

Does any know how tough the contract paper is marked?

Leraf

Bbol wrote: »

Does any know how tough the contract paper is marked?

😭 need to know this too

Sineaddh

Have to get EU done in one night?! What are my best topics? ;(

kasey0123

sapphire309 wrote: »

Can somebody explain to me the position of student workers? I know in Grzelczyk that the court found that a Belgian student in the same position as the French student applicant would have been granted the subsistence allowance, and so this was found to be discriminatory on grounds of his nationality. But I also have in my notes that the case of Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland is authority for the fact that non-national student workers aren't entitled to full social advantages as a fully fledged worker under EU law.

Does this mean that if the non-national-student is working part-time through university, he won't be entitled to all the social and tax advantages of a non-national person (not a student), but that if he is not working at all and is simply attending uni, he will be entitled to student loans the same as a national-student?

You are right about Grzelczyk they found it was discriminatory... in Browne the problem was that the student technically entered into university first, so first they must work THEN take up a qualification / enter uni... he only got the job offer as he was granted admission to uni, in my notes I just have beside it WORK MUST come first. Then studies. And you can benefit. But in Browne admission came first work after so no benefit

kasey0123

Sineaddh wrote: »

Have to get EU done in one night?! What are my best topics? ;(

Direct effect and member state liability
Free movement of goods
Judicial review
Institutions ( it’s basically in legislation)
Citizenship and equality!

Best of luck!

xBell123

For EU I’ve got:

Institutions
General principles
Fundamental rights
Direct effect
MS liability
FMG
FMW
Citizenship
Equality
Judicial review

Trying to decide whether I should learn Articles 101 and 102 OR preliminary reference and sources of law?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated ��

JCormac

For Contract today; the first part of Q1 was on Past Consideration?

I put Promissory Estoppel but it's not that, right?

Bbol

Leraf wrote: »

😭 need to know this too

Praying both contract and criminal aren’t graded too tough!