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

Daly29

JCreaghy wrote: »

Anyone else doing criminal and equity next week and freaking out? How are people allocating study time? Any advice?

Spent so much time on Constitutional this week. Have EU, Contract, Equity and Criminal next week. Going to stay up as late as I can doing EU tonight, Equity and Contract tomorrow and Criminal Sunday. Bit tired so think I'll condense my cases to like one or two words and get it as short as possible and break them down that way. At least I will be active that way and not staring blankly at pages. I'll have to be stretched out Thursday

iamanengine

Louis Litt wrote: »

Contract

What EU legislation are people covering for consumer contracts??

I'm wondering the same.

I only have notes for The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the one for Off-Premises/Distance contracts.

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm wondering the same.

I only have notes for The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the one for Off-Premises/Distance contracts.

is Off-Premises/Distance contracts covered by the 2013 reg? 14 day cooling period.

I have notes which refer to a 2001 reg for distance selling with a 7 day cooling period?

iamanengine

Louis Litt wrote: »

is Off-Premises/Distance contracts covered by the 2013 reg? 14 day cooling period.

I have notes which refer to a 2001 reg for distance selling with a 7 day cooling period?

Yeah The Consumer Rights Regulations 2013, not sure about the 2001 one.

I had a look through past exam papers, she recently asked about the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003...anyone have any notes on this?

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah The Consumer Rights Regulations 2013, not sure about the 2001 one.

I had a look through past exam papers, she recently asked about the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003...anyone have any notes on this?

Came across the below but its abit brief
European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantee) Regulations 2003
Main rights given under this are:
· If you purchase goods or services from another EU MS and they were advertised in your MS, you are protected under consumer law or your home country.
· If you buy goods or services while you were visiting another MS the laws of the country in which you bought the items apply.
· Any statement made about goods by seller must be true or they are liable, includes ads.
Product must also be fit for purpose
· If installation of good is included in purchase price then the retailer is liable for any issues. Any fault in instructions is resp. of retailer.
The main ideas here are that the goods must "conform" to the contract, which means they must meet criteria similar to those found in sections 12 -15 of the sale of Goods Act. The main remedy is repair or replacement, and it is only if that is not possible or id disproportionate that a refund (or partial refund) is possible. One major advantage of the Regulations is that there is a presumption for the first 6 months that any lack of conformity is fault of trader. It is also worth noting that the Regulations operate in parallel with the Sale of Goods Act.

HappyKitten62

What are people learning for equity?

JCormac

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Not screwed at all. FMOS rarely, if ever, comes up and when it does it tends to be with the equally unusual FMOW, which was just up. Institutions also just came up and really is all in the legislation. What I would say on it is to do a flashcard on FMOS of 4/5 cases - that way if a lovely FMOW Q did come up that you had it, and wouldn't cost you doing an otherwise handy Q.

Sources of EU law is handy enough - think as far as I can see he only asks the difference between directives and regulations, but once again not insanely common so really don't think unreasonable to cut

Thanks for the heads-up! - Was really dreading having to add all of FMOS to the already insurmountable list of topics to get done before the 10th :pac:

Fingers crossed for two FMOG questions on the paper!

Smiley283

Has anyone any sample answers for the 3 certainties or charitable trusts they could share? I have sample answers for EU!

JCormac

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Anyone doing sources of EU law, can anyone explain to me the Variosa case? He's mentioned it in marking scheme but not in my notes anywhere

What sitting? Searched the web and saw no sign of it, weird.

Probably a stupid question, but could it be a typo where it was supposed to be '___ v Ariosa'?

Smiley283

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

What are people learning for equity?

Injunctions
Estoppel
Tracing
Charitable trusts/non charitable/cypress
Resulting trusts
Specific performance
Rectification
Recission
Trustees duties
3 certainties

Still have to cover them all but it's my 3rd time sitting equity and have passed both times so feeling ok for it.

FE1 Lady

What Came Up In Constitutional Paper Today?

20082014

JCormac wrote: »

What sitting? Searched the web and saw no sign of it, weird.

Probably a stupid question, but could it be a typo where it was supposed to be '___ v Ariosa'?

I have a case 'Variola' in my notes for Sources of EU law, could that be it?

HappyKitten62

Smiley283 wrote: »

Injunctions
Estoppel
Tracing
Charitable trusts/non charitable/cypress
Resulting trusts
Specific performance
Rectification
Recission
Trustees duties
3 certainties


Still have to cover them all but it's my 3rd time sitting equity and have passed both times so feeling ok for it.

I’m completely terrified for it! The papers look hard and I’ve heard she marks hard. I’ve looked at injunctions, express Trusts, secret trusts, specific performance, estoppel, rectification, trustees, and purpose trusts

LawGirl3434

sbbyrne wrote: »

20082014 wrote: »

EU LAWShould I add anything to this list?InstitutionsSources of EU LawPrinciples underpinning the exercise of legislative powerDirect

JCormac wrote: »

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Anyone doing sources of EU law, can anyone explain to me the Variosa case? He's mentioned it in marking scheme but not in my notes anywhere

What sitting? Searched the web and saw no sign of it, weird.

Probably a stupid question, but could it be a typo where it was supposed to be '___ v Ariosa'?

Same here! Thanks so much for checking! Maybe, but wasn’t in his report as that think it was autumn 2015 but I’ll check

Vegetarian2017

BemusedKettle wrote: »

Q6 - I never heard of this case - NVH v Min. for Justice -but based on what was given in the question I went through the findings of unconstitutionality and retrospective effect thereof chapter...... please tell me that's someway applicable

I did the same however, I basically said due to the devastating effects a finding can have ie. the case of A prisoner walking free and mentioned crotty impact that the SC have a set of prins to defer a q on constitutionality ie presumption, double construction rule, non del and mootness, deference etc...I hope that's what he wanted!

Smiley283

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

I’m completely terrified for it! The papers look hard and I’ve heard she marks hard. I’ve looked at injunctions, express Trusts, secret trusts, specific performance, estoppel, rectification, trustees, and purpose trusts

Honestly, dont be afraid of the paper! I think plenty of case law will get you a pass.

I keep telling myself "how does a wall get built? Brick by brick" so just keep going and put your best foot forward.

Vegetarian2017

Daly29 wrote: »

I agree, i found it a tough paper and tried to prepare as best I could, guessing the majority of people found it tough. The majority of people are not going to have found all the issues, covered all the bases, the majority will pass and be fine, he has scope to be fairer depending on the paper, it's a bit more subjective than other subjects. I think be people found the last paper pretty straightforward so looks like he would know this would be more challenging and mark accordingly. I'm telling myself this anyway so I can move without being total disheartened and try and get some cert passes in the last 4 next week :-)

Couldn't do the case note question either, only McCrystal was ever previously asked. Wouldnt think that was picked by many at all. Go to never before asked and stick two others in would seem like a logical approach. Basically gave people 5/7 from a ridicosly big subject. That makes things pretty difficult for everyone.

Yes, having a had an hour or two sleep I think you are right. We didn't even have an ole reliable AG or interp question so the paper probably was a slight curveball. I came out quite stressed tbh having felt i put in the work.

I think being able to answer five questions and have a good take on most of the issues in itself on such a large topic is subrely almost enough for a pass as opposed
to other subjects.

Vegetarian2017

FE1 Lady wrote: »

What Came Up In Constitutional Paper Today?

No reliables! Having thought about it, it actually wasn't the most straightforward paper! Q1. Problem re sop prins and policy q2 problem mix property, fair procedure, mins acting out their powers? q3 essay article 45 q4 case note q5 essay equality q6 essay unconstitutional power to defer q7 influence of religion q8 freedom of exp

Open to correction from anyone, I think that was the gist of it!

FE1 Lady

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

FE1 Lady wrote: »

What Came Up In Constitutional Paper Today?

No reliables! Having thought about it, it actually wasn't the most straightforward paper! Q1. Problem re sop prins and policy q2 problem mix property, fair procedure, mins acting out their powers? q3 essay article 45 q4 case note q5 essay equality q6 essay unconstitutional power to defer q7 influence of religion q8 freedom of exp

Open to correction from anyone, I think that was the gist of it!

Wow! What a nasty paper! Very Limited!!

rightytighty

Did anyone go down the road of what bases he could challenge publication on for Q8? I put down right to marital and general privacy and also right to work as being bases doomed to fail but felt the freedom of expression and prior restraint was a bit light or something, so scared of missing stuff

Daly29

rightytighty wrote: »

Did anyone go down the road of what bases he could challenge publication on for Q8? I put down right to marital and general privacy and also right to work as being bases doomed to fail but felt the freedom of expression and prior restraint was a bit light or something, so scared of missing stuff

I said he would most likely get it, right to privacy and A8 ECHR trumping because he has this and a right to good name. Also said it would affect right to work. On her side I used two cases where courting publicity was a factor and said the courts would noyt look favourbly on this. Thats the angle I went at. I just thought I could make a more nuanced/supported argument that way. No issues going the other way too once supported. It was a wide Q, sounds like you hit all the important parts :-)

LawGirl3434

EU People

Probably such a dumb question (head fried) but in a direct effect/ member state liability question, when he asks you if someone convicted under national law could have claim agains the state, is that when you'd go into Francovich and Factorame? Or is he looking for the specific cases on criminal liability - Arcado etc? Or just cases confirming can get damages for mannifest breach of EU law?

LawGirl3434

EU People (again, sorry)

FMOG: does anyone have a note on what Conegate decided?

Citizenship: anyone have the cases Ogieriakhi (think an Irish 2014 case?) and Lassal and could provide me with a brief summary

Thanks!

Daly29

EU LAW

Should I add anything to this list?

Institutions
Sources of EU Law
Principles underpinning the exercise of legislative power
Direct & Indirect Effect
Member state Liability
Judicial Review
EU citizenship
Equal Pay, Equal Treatment & Non-discrimination
Free Movement of Workers
Free Movement of Services and Freedom of Establishment
Free Movement of Goods (Art.34-36 and Art.110 & 30)

I have also very very briefly looked over fundamental rights, no cases or anything, just the basics if I need to throw it into a question.

Would there be anything else worthwhile to do?

sbbyrne wrote: »

I'm doing pretty much the same, hoping we should be covered with that?
Although if anyone has any suggestions i'm also all ears!

Thank you for this!

Have all of the above except for

Free Movement of Services and Freedom of Establishment
Sources of EU Law

I will add these tonight (very condensed) . That is surely me covered for EU?

Going to try to be safe on this as my knowledge of each case is limited so thats me down to 5 Qs out 7.

Any people being a bit more conservative? Constitution wasnt great today so would really like to cover myself for the rest and NEVER have to do this again :-)

illy.m

Equity

Can some good soul please explain the duty not to make profit to me please. My brain is just refusing to understand this. I get the remuneration bit. However the duty not to make a profit got me very confused. I dont know if its just badly written in my manual or me being slow.

The cases I have - "Keech v Sandford which was applied in Protheroe v Protheroe - re husband wife as beneficial owners under trust and he bought out freehold reversion and then sold. Therefore constructive trust has arisen." - how does that relate to duty not to profit? Then I have Re Macadam which is straightforward I get that bit - fiduciaries not to make profit. Then I have Boardman v Phibbs. Finally, Re Gee however provides trustees were permitted to retain remuneration.

So is there a duty not to make profit and it could be allowed in some circumstances as per Re Gee?

I would really appreciate if someone could clear this up for me!!!

Daly29

illy.m wrote: »

Equity

Can some good soul please explain the duty not to make profit to me please. My brain is just refusing to understand this. I get the remuneration bit. However the duty not to make a profit got me very confused. I dont know if its just badly written in my manual or me being slow.

The cases I have - "Keech v Sandford which was applied in Protheroe v Protheroe - re husband wife as beneficial owners under trust and he bought out freehold reversion and then sold. Therefore constructive trust has arisen." - how does that relate to duty not to profit? Then I have Re Macadam which is straightforward I get that bit - fiduciaries not to make profit. Then I have Boardman v Phibbs. Finally, Re Gee however provides trustees were permitted to retain remuneration.

So is there a duty not to make profit and it could be allowed in some circumstances as per Re Gee?

I would really appreciate if someone could clear this up for me!!!

I havent done this subject in depth at all, doing it tomorrow but here some lines on each, maybe of some use:

Keech v Sandford Rule
The rule that a trustee is prevented from retaining the benefit of a lease that is renewed in his own name, the lease having previously been held on trust.

Boardman v Phibbs
HoL held that the DEFs were liable to a/c for the profit made but, because
they had at all times behaved in a BF manner, they were entitled to be paid for the work carried out.

They should not profit personally, other than a fee for their services. Re Gee: trustees need to account for personal profits. There can be an indirect remuneration from a third party i.e. if a trust holds a substantial amount of share in a co, often the trustee becomes the director of that co t safeguard the assets, which allows them to use their voting rights. The question thus arises as to directors’ fees. If their voting right is not decisive and it is an independent directorship, they may keep their shares. Trustees can however claim legitimate expenses:

supercreative

EU Predictions

What are everyone's predictions for EU? It's the subject I feel least comfortable with but I figure the pass rate means he's pretty kind as a marker? Any help would be appreciated

lisac223

EU - Free Movement of Goods

Can someone please help me out with this I think my brain is melting from tying to figure it out!

So Article 110(1) relates to similar goods. Direct tax on them can never be justified but indirect tax may if they meet the 4 step 'legitimate objective' test right?

Does the exact same thing re direct & indirect taxation relate to A110(2) for dissimilar products, or does that section allow direct discrimination sometimes?

Any help would really be appreciated, struggling with this all morning!

TIA :-)

JCormac

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

EU People (again, sorry)

FMOG: does anyone have a note on what Conegate decided?

Citizenship: anyone have the cases Ogieriakhi (think an Irish 2014 case?) and Lassal and could provide me with a brief summary

Thanks!

For Conegate, what I have is:

FACTS: UK law prohibited the importation of 'love dolls' from Germany, but no law prevented their manufacture in the UK. Conegate argued that the UK laws violated Article 34 TFEU.

HELD: The ECJ held that MS may not rely on grounds of public morality to prohibit the importation of goods from other Member States when its own legislation contains no prohibition on the manufacture or marketing of the same goods within its own territory.

Basically, practice what you preach

Daly29

JCormac wrote: »

For Conegate, what I have is:

FACTS: UK law prohibited the importation of 'love dolls' from Germany, but no law prevented their manufacture in the UK. Conegate argued that the UK laws violated Article 34 TFEU.

HELD: The ECJ held that MS may not rely on grounds of public morality to prohibit the importation of goods from other Member States when its own legislation contains no prohibition on the manufacture or marketing of the same goods within its own territory.

Basically, practice what you preach

Justice for Love Dolls!!!