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

Wonderstruck

Pollylou75 wrote: »

Hi everyone, looking for some advice. I've decided to sit the exams in March. I sat them for the first time last October and passed 1 but failed two. That time I sat constitutional, contract and property. Is there a partucular combination of subjects that I should be covering to get the magic three.

Exact 3 I did and failed contract :pac:

Equity overlaps with Contract and Property (estoppel is on all 3, undue influence is on contract and equity, a lot of property is heavily influenced by equitable principles e.g. resulting trusts, i think equity in property law comes up sometimes, the maxims are very relevant etc, any equitable remedy in contract e.g. specific performance is obviously part of the equity course too).

I'd definitely consider equity as one to do next time!

I'd better get back to cramming so :cool:

holliek

TORT

I notice a few people have mentioned covering limitations. Is this purely being predicted due to the 2 SC cases or is it due a run? From my grid, it hasn't been up since Oct 15, is this right? I had skipped it thinking it wasn't important but wondering if it's worth a look over

Hamerzan Sickles

holliek wrote: »

TORT

I notice a few people have mentioned covering limitations. Is this purely being predicted due to the 2 SC cases or is it due a run? From my grid, it hasn't been up since Oct 15, is this right? I had skipped it thinking it wasn't important but wondering if it's worth a look over

According to my grid it came up in March 2018. It's a reasonably popular essay topic. I have covered it anyway.

Jack McCoy

Limitations comes up frequently enough, is very examinable and is important to know in practice. Definitely worth a look over if you have time.

FE!student

Does anyone know when the current Constitutional Examiner started setting the papers?

LawGirl3434

Company

Share Transfer - does anyone have the precedent from Re Olde Court Holiday Hostel Treahy v Murtagh et al?

GF612

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Company

Share Transfer - does anyone have the precedent from Re Olde Court Holiday Hostel Treahy v Murtagh et al?

Under s.173(2) where the Plaintiff makes out their case, the Court may order that the company pay the aggrieved person compensation for any loss they have suffered.

Re Olde Court Holiday Hostel (2006)
Laffoy J said that the power to award compensation under s.173(2) is a discretionary remedy and it is up to the courts to decide how and when to avail of it.

LawGirl3434

GF612 wrote: »

Under s.173(2) where the Plaintiff makes out their case, the Court may order that the company pay the aggrieved person compensation for any loss they have suffered.

Re Olde Court Holiday Hostel (2006)
Laffoy J said that the power to award compensation under s.173(2) is a discretionary remedy and it is up to the courts to decide how and when to avail of it.

Thank you!

holliek

Jack McCoy wrote: »

Limitations comes up frequently enough, is very examinable and is important to know in practice. Definitely worth a look over if you have time.

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

According to my grid it came up in March 2018. It's a reasonably popular essay topic. I have covered it anyway.

Thank you both! Just wondering re personal injuries I'm confused by the period, I thought it was 2 years but s7 civil liab and courts act 2004 indicate its changed to 3 years?

nimcdona

holliek wrote: »

Thank you both! Just wondering re personal injuries I'm confused by the period, I thought it was 2 years but s7 civil liab and courts act 2004 indicate its changed to 3 years?

It was 3 years by virtue of the statute of limitations act 1957 and this was amended to 2 years by section 7 of the civil liability and courts act 2004

holliek

nimcdona wrote: »

It was 3 years by virtue of the statute of limitations act 1957 and this was amended to 2 years by section 7 of the civil liability and courts act 2004

That makes sense thank you, and does the 3 year rule still apply to those acting under disability?

Jack McCoy

holliek wrote: »

That makes sense thank you, and does the 3 year rule still apply to those acting under disability?

I think its two years for disability under the 2004 Act as well. It amended S. 5 of the 1991 act by inserting two years in place of three.

JCormac

Company

The Re Peachdart case under ROT Clauses (Aggregate).

I'd be extremely grateful if some kind soul could help with this

Am I right in thinking that had the seller registered the Aggregate Clause, he would have been able to claim the finished products (handbags) if needed?

The fact isn't that the goods were irreversibly mixed, it's that no charge was registered?

If not, what's the point of the Aggregation clause in the first place? Arghh

GF612

JCormac wrote: »

Company

The Re Peachdart case under ROT Clauses (Aggregate).

I'd be extremely grateful if some kind soul could help with this

Am I right in thinking that had the seller registered the Aggregate Clause, he would have been able to claim the finished products (handbags) if needed?

The fact isn't that the goods were irreversibly mixed, it's that no charge was registered?

If not, what's the point of the Aggregation clause in the first place? Arghh

I think the point of the case is that where goods have been irreversibly mixed then the supplier cannot retain title and instead must register a charge.
Where the goods remain separable then the title is retained.
In this case the leather supplied had been made into handbags and thus title was not retained - should've registered a charge.

Open to correction on this however

Aoibhin511

Is there any point in tabbing the companies act? not sure if its a good use of time right now but worried i'll regret it. Anyone found it beneficial or useless before?

Smiley283

Equity

Has anyone received tips on what injunction is likely to be examined or is it a matter of playing it safe and covering them all?

Has there been a problem question based on interlocutory injunctions before?

JCormac

GF612 wrote: »

I think the point of the case is that where goods have been irreversibly mixed then the supplier cannot retain title and instead must register a charge.
Where the goods remain separable then the title is retained.
In this case the leather supplied had been made into handbags and thus title was not retained - should've registered a charge.

Open to correction on this however

Great, thanks a million! Appreciate it!

greenery2

Could someone please help me as to how to distinguish between the infliction of emotional distress (trespass to person) and nervous shock?

Also given that Cronin v Kostal rejected the Wilkinson v Downtown principle is infliction of emotional distress irrecoverable now?

Please & thanks!


EDIT - I went back through the thread and now realise that the tort is infliction and the injury is nervous shock (?), thank you. But does anyone have any clarity on the second Q?

supercreative

greenery2 wrote: »

Could someone please help me as to how to distinguish between the infliction of emotional distress (trespass to person) and nervous shock?

Also given that Cronin v Kostal rejected the Wilkinson v Downtown principle is infliction of emotional distress irrecoverable now?

Please & thanks!


EDIT - I went back through the thread and now realise that the tort is infliction and the injury is nervous shock (?), thank you. But does anyone have any clarity on the second Q?

I don't think Cronin v Kostal rejected Wilkinson v Downton! Footnote 3 on this document might help: http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Arthur_Cox_Workplace-Bullying-The-Supreme-Court-Settles-The-Law.pdf

maudy1

COMPANY
Corporate borrowing- Do we know what's tipped/ guessed to come up in particular? So much in that topic alone 😭

iamanengine

There's so many topics to cover in Tort it's crazy.

Will to live...slowly...fading......

legaltraineex

TORT

In the March 2018 Question on Product Liability (Qu. 3) the company is aware of the defect with the product and plans to include it in the instructions of next batch (while 10,000 more units will already go out without warning). However, they update the online instructions.

Would you say that is a reasonable discharge of the duty to warn? Considering there is nothing pointing the customer to these instructions.

user115

Re Statute of Limitations, is negligence, nuisance and breach of duty cases to be taken within 6 years but if its a negligence, nuisance or breach of duty case involving personal injuries then its 2 years?

legaltraineex

user115 wrote: »

Re Statute of Limitations, is negligence, nuisance and breach of duty cases to be taken within 6 years but if its a negligence, nuisance or breach of duty case involving personal injuries then its 2 years?

6 year period applies to trespass, property damage, economic loss under S.11(2)(a) SOL 1957.

S. 11(2)(b) - 3 years for negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty.

S.7 Civil Liability Act 2004 - 2 years for personal injury claims.

luimneachabu73

Company

I've just decided to add in SAP.

I've figured out that the restricted activities can be taken straight from the Act. Is any more of the info needed hidden away in here?

Thanks

Jack McCoy

user115 wrote: »

Re Statute of Limitations, is negligence, nuisance and breach of duty cases to be taken within 6 years but if its a negligence, nuisance or breach of duty case involving personal injuries then its 2 years?

General tort action is six years.

Negligence, nuisance or breach of duty causing PI is two years.

Defamation is one year.

I think.

There may be other exceptions as well.

LawBoy2018

TORT LAW

Are there any cases that deal with the 3rd and 4th elements of the Glencar test? Policy + Fiar just and reasonable?? I would be extremely grateful if someone could answer this for me. What do we talk about for those points?? Thank you!!

BemusedKettle

Quick Query re the Institutions of State Topics - The Oireachtas, The Courts, the Judiciary, The President & The AG

How important are they? It takes the manual I have over 60 pages to get through them and it's looking like my Waterloo.

The nutshell goes through those topics in a fraction of the words that the manual uses but I'm thinking that cannot be thorough enough at all

user115

legaltraineex wrote: »

TORT

In the March 2018 Question on Product Liability (Qu. 3) the company is aware of the defect with the product and plans to include it in the instructions of next batch (while 10,000 more units will already go out without warning). However, they update the online instructions.

Would you say that is a reasonable discharge of the duty to warn? Considering there is nothing pointing the customer to these instructions.

Rivtoe Marine v Washington Iron Works is authority to say if it's a serious defect it needs to be recalled if discovered but if only small defect then it's okay to take a more proportionate approach, I think its a Canadian case

Jack McCoy

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

TORT LAW

Are there any cases that deal with the 3rd and 4th elements of the Glencar test? Policy + Fiar just and reasonable?? I would be extremely grateful if someone could answer this for me. What do we talk about for those points?? Thank you!!

O'Donnell J. in Whelan v AIB:

As Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed in Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550 (pp. 559-560);

• • “… the decision as to whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability in negligence on a particular class of would-be defendants depends on weighing in the balance the total detriment to the public interest in all cases from holding such class liable in negligence as against the total loss to all would-be plaintiffs if they are not to have a cause of action in respect of the loss they have individually suffered. … Questions of public policy and the question whether it is fair and reasonable to impose liability in negligence are decided as questions of law. Once the decision is taken that, say, company auditors though liable to shareholders for negligent auditing are not liable to those proposing to invest in the company … that decision will apply to all future cases of the same kind. The decision does not depend on weighing the balance between the extent of the damage to the plaintiff and the damage to the public in each particular case.”

The test does not mandate or permit a consideration of each individual case and whether the imposition of a duty of care, and therefore liability, meets some undefined concept of fairness in the particular case. If that were so, then the law would be no more than the application of individual discretion in different facts or circumstances which might well be decided differently from court to court. In such circumstances, the law of negligence would be little more than the wilderness of single instances criticised by Tennyson.