nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

fe1er

Does anyone have the independent predictions for criminal law?

qwerty1991

I hate post mortems but that exam was tough and am now so worried

I don't know did I do enough to pass but here is what I got:

Q1 - mistake (literally that's all it could say as didn't study that topic) and frustration

Q2- a. Misrepresentation and recession

b. Breach of contract and expectation loss damages due to the effect on her reputation and future business affected

c. Sale of goods act 1980 s.44 that couple could sue on misrepresentation of wedding meal but as innocent misrepresentation may not be awarded damages

Q3 a.capacity and beneficial contract for service

B. Unilateral contract

C. Breach of contract but not under consumer rights as both were businesses

Q. 6 past consideration... only had like 3 cases and the exception

Q.8 penalty clauses- strictly interpreted, acceleration clauses exception

It looks like contract is going down the route of tort where anything comes up and people all have different answers for problem questions... I'm guessing if you can apply it to the facts then you should get marks unless it's totally off track!!

DaveKit

For q. 3c I said that they could get damages for distress like in Dinnegan and Diesen?

Also for Tort does anyone know what he wanted for q.1? He asked for CAUSE and thats what he got off me, he can jog on if he marks that badly.

Dunne1995

DaveKit wrote: »

For q. 3c I said that they could get damages for distress like in Dinnegan and Diesen?

Also for Tort does anyone know what he wanted for q.1? He asked for CAUSE and thats what he got off me, he can jog on if he marks that badly.

Exam reports say in past questions where he's asked for causation that that's what should be focused on. No need to go into breach of duty of care etc

DaveKit

He made the first 2/3's of the question out on product liability though...just to put one off I imagine. I remember a few years ago a question looked like it was defective premises; and another year it was a weird one on vegans...both causation. I think he likes to make his causation question complex otherwise people would fly through it.

laurenburne

Any eu predictions from independent? They were spot on for tort...too bad I didn't listen ðŸ˜£ my attempt to answer the false imprisonment and duty of care question was dire. ..which obviously screams to the examiner I was banking on certain topics. .. will I ever learn.

Supermax1988

DaveKit wrote: »

For q. 3c I said that they could get damages for distress like in Dinnegan and Diesen?

I did the same. Damages for distress can be claimed in cases of recreation and leisure which a wedding would fall under.

Also said for part b that she could have claimed stigma damages against Finn as per Malick v BCCI.

Supermax1988

DaveKit wrote: »

For q. 3c I said that they could get damages for distress like in Dinnegan and Diesen?

I did the same. Damages for distress can be claimed in cases of recreation and leisure which a wedding would fall under.

Also said for part b that she could have claimed stigma damages against Finn as per Malick v BCCI.

odwyer94

Came out thinking I failed and reading these comments certainly doesn't help as I seem to have gotten literally everything wrong! Oh well.

Really had some difficulty trying to work out what was being asked. I probably had relatively good knowledge of the topics that arose (some of them at least) but I was very confused about what to talk about for each answer. I regret not doing more practice questions for this reason.

2121993

DaveKit wrote: »

He made the first 2/3's of the question out on product liability though...just to put one off I imagine. I remember a few years ago a question looked like it was defective premises; and another year it was a weird one on vegans...both causation. I think he likes to make his causation question complex otherwise people would fly through it.

I did a short paragraph on defective products saying it didn't cause the damage based on Palmer etc. Then the Barnett, Bonnington/McGhee/Wilshir/Fairchild case law and the material contribution test and the Civil Liability Act regarding concurrent wrongdoers. I said her parents may be liable vicariously under Moynihan and that her school may be liable under Dorset Yacht Co and Maher etc,the bullying cases. Then I spoke a little about novus actus interveniens and his contributory negligence.

For the laneway question did people do false imprisonment and whether the council could be vicariously liable?

MeganC1554

Good Afternoon Guys. Just Wondering Is Any Poor Soul About Red Cow That Are Also On There Own And Wanted To Meet And Get Dinner Or Something. I Feel Like Cabin Fever Is Setting In.

DaveKit

2121993 wrote: »

I did a short paragraph on defective products saying it didn't cause the damage based on Palmer etc. Then the Barnett, Bonnington/McGhee/Wilshir/Fairchild case law and the material contribution test and the Civil Liability Act regarding concurrent wrongdoers. I said her parents may be liable vicariously under Moynihan and that her school may be liable under Dorset Yacht Co and Maher etc,the bullying cases. Then I spoke a little about novus actus interveniens and his contributory negligence.

For the laneway question did people do false imprisonment and whether the council could be vicariously liable?

Sounds good. I said the childs mirror was a novus actus and then threw in Smith v Leavy saying the accident would've happened anyway!

Yohnathan

Dunne1995 wrote: »

Exam reports say in past questions where he's asked for causation that that's what should be focused on. No need to go into breach of duty of care etc

It was Causation but there is specific common law for that in the Defective Products chapter. Then general Causation came into play too.

I hope!

Yohnathan

2121993 wrote: »

I did a short paragraph on defective products saying it didn't cause the damage based on Palmer etc. Then the Barnett, Bonnington/McGhee/Wilshir/Fairchild case law and the material contribution test and the Civil Liability Act regarding concurrent wrongdoers. I said her parents may be liable vicariously under Moynihan and that her school may be liable under Dorset Yacht Co and Maher etc,the bullying cases. Then I spoke a little about novus actus interveniens and his contributory negligence.

For the laneway question did people do false imprisonment and whether the council could be vicariously liable?

I can't remember exactly what I did but I'm pretty sure I went the same way about the Causation question. I said the school could be liable. Said her act was a Novus Actus Interviens. And used the material contribution test like you.

Used Product Liability and remoteness etc

Supermax1988

odwyer94 wrote: »

Came out thinking I failed and reading these comments certainly doesn't help as I seem to have gotten literally everything wrong! Oh well.

Really had some difficulty trying to work out what was being asked. I probably had relatively good knowledge of the topics that arose (some of them at least) but I was very confused about what to talk about for each answer. I regret not doing more practice questions for this reason.

Don't give up hope just yet. If there's a general theme on this thread it's that a lot of people that thought they did terrible in exams ended up passing and some others who felt the exam went well ended up failing. You never know. Put it behind you and focus on the next exam.

Dancing-Ferret

@Yohnathan, I feel your pain. The girl sitting in front of me for Constitutional was unbelievable.

She strolled in and before she even sat down was incredulously complaining to the invigilator that her constitution wasn't on the desk, that she had handed it in "ages ago". The invigilator was apologetic, and went off to investigate. She proceeded to spend the first 15 minutes asking each invigilator who walked past where it was. I couldn't believe it when the head guy came down and asked her when exactly she handed it in, and she said "this morning". Unreal. Like what do you expect? Its clear that if you hand it in on the day, it won't be with you for at least a half hour.

She also complained about the room temperature and the noise of the a/c duct above her!

Some people eh!

starbar91

Equity question for all you of enthusiasts out there.

So, half secret trust created by testator for benefit of his partner who he didn't want to disclose on will (Aoife). Will says leave to John and Mary as tenants in common in confidence they'll use it for purposes testator will tell. Only tells John that property to go to aoife before he dies and John doesn't tell Mary. Mary claims entitlement to half.

Rule in Re Stead (although on full secret trusts) says that trust will only bind those who have been communicated the obligation. Further distinguishes those tenants in common who know of trust but not the specific obligation. Such a person (Mary), will hold on a resulting trust for testators estate due to half secret trust failing.

My question: does whole half secret trust fail or just Mary's portion? As in, John has met all criteria for Aoife to benefit from his part of half secret trust - is she then a tenant in common with testators estate or has half secret trust totally failed and the estate is the only beneficiary??

Mucho appreciado

Yohnathan

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

From Independent:

Can't be left out:
Offer & Acceptance
Consideration
Consumer Protection
Remedies
Discharge of a Contract
Mistake
Exemption Clauses

Studied in detail:
Terms
Estoppel
Privity of Contract
Misrepresentation
Duress

Never got a chance to say thanks for this! Was offline yesterday but saw it through my phone! Cheers

LawGuy2016

Hi,

Just wondering does anybody have any Infringement notes for EU?

I have notes done up for most of the other topics (apart from (Equality & State Aid) which I am more than happy to share in return.

Thanks.

LawGuy2016

Today, in the exam i did:

(1) Essay on Penalty Clauses (I was happy with this)
(2) Essay on terms made before a contract entered into (I was happy with this)
(3) Problem Question on Mistake and Frustration (I was happy with this)
(4) Essay on Past Consideration and PE (This was short and rushed but not awful)
(5) Problem question on Misrepresentation and Damages/Privity Exception (Stupidly, I answered the first part of this question on breach and Hong Kong Firs etc, I know, I know, so stupid as there wasn't even a contract to begin with. I put it down to exhaustion/exam nerves/pressure and running out of time and so I sped-read the question. I wouldn't mind but I had studied Misrepresentation in detail so I instantly should have spotted it and been able answer that part of the question correctly . I answered the second part of the question correctly on damages/emotion distrees/agency exception etc etc.

As I am now essentially being marked out of 4.5/5, do I have any hope of passing this exam? I need to pass my exams this sitting or I lose a TC. Is the contract examiner a tough marker? Any stories of completely and blatantly ****ing up half a question and still passing the exam? Really, I had three good question, one waffly one and one awful one.

devinerocks88

LawGuy2016 wrote: »

Today, in the exam i did:

(1) Essay on Penalty Clauses (I was happy with this)
(2) Essay on terms made before a contract entered into (I was happy with this)
(3) Problem Question on Mistake and Frustration (I was happy with this)
(4) Essay on Past Consideration and PE (This was short and rushed but not awful)
(5) Problem question on Misrepresentation and Damages/Privity Exception (Stupidly, I answered the first part of this question on breach and Hong Kong Firs etc, I know, I know, so stupid as there wasn't even a contract to begin with. I put it down to exhaustion/exam nerves/pressure and running out of time and so I sped-read the question. I wouldn't mind but I had studied Misrepresentation in detail so I instantly should have spotted it and been able answer that part of the question correctly . I answered the second part of the question correctly on damages/emotion distrees/agency exception etc etc.

As I am now essentially being marked out of 4.5/5, do I have any hope of passing this exam? I need to pass my exams this sitting or I lose a TC. Is the contract examiner a tough marker? Any stories of completely and blatantly ****ing up half a question and still passing the exam? Really, I had three good question, one waffly one and one awful one.

Firstly fair play on that contract paper because I had an absolute howler - thought it was horrific by contract standard and hindsight I should have done the estoppel q too I was just afraid I wouldn't have enough on the past consideration part. I know the contract marker is tough enough too but given that there seems to be a general consensus as to the paper being horrible it may be taken into consideration. I will say though I sat tort in March and had about 20 mins left for my last question blanked panicked and wrote about relational economic loss went out looked at the paper realised it was a causation bonnington McGhee wilsher and remoteness question so I got an entire question completely and utterly wrong - and by some grace of God got 55 and that's with genuinely 4 questions. Again fair play today to you you should be proud!

Redo91

DaveKit wrote: »

He made the first 2/3's of the question out on product liability though...just to put one off I imagine. I remember a few years ago a question looked like it was defective premises; and another year it was a weird one on vegans...both causation. I think he likes to make his causation question complex otherwise people would fly through it.

Surely you'll get marks if spent some of your answer dealing with product liability? He can't just put it in and then not give marks out when people refer to it.

I mentioned Fleming v Kerry County Council in relation to the contributory negligence of the child and said she was too young to be held liable.

I said the truck drivers act was a novus actus interveniens as he over reacted to the light in his eyes.

LawGuy2016

Thanks for the words of encouragement DevineRocks88. I am still so so annoyed at myself. Like misrepresentation is so obvious now!! How the hell did I not spot it??!!

NewNewBird

Brace yourselves.....stupid question on the way!!

Why are people highlighting/red pen their cases? Is this a requirement? ðŸ˜± Excuse my ignorance as its my first time sitting Fe1s and I'm self teaching.....have discovered grinds will be necessity for March!!

Tigerbalm1

starbar91 wrote: »

Equity question for all you of enthusiasts out there.

So, half secret trust created by testator for benefit of his partner who he didn't want to disclose on will (Aoife). Will says leave to John and Mary as tenants in common in confidence they'll use it for purposes testator will tell. Only tells John that property to go to aoife before he dies and John doesn't tell Mary. Mary claims entitlement to half.

Rule in Re Stead (although on full secret trusts) says that trust will only bind those who have been communicated the obligation. Further distinguishes those tenants in common who know of trust but not the specific obligation. Such a person (Mary), will hold on a resulting trust for testators estate due to half secret trust failing.

My question: does whole half secret trust fail or just Mary's portion? As in, John has met all criteria for Aoife to benefit from his part of half secret trust - is she then a tenant in common with testators estate or has half secret trust totally failed and the estate is the only beneficiary??

Mucho appreciado

I had wrote an answer to this but it didn't post - will do it again tomorrow, too tired to remember it!

OscarBN

NewNewBird wrote: »

Brace yourselves.....stupid question on the way!!

Why are people highlighting/red pen their cases? Is this a requirement? ðŸ˜± Excuse my ignorance as its my first time sitting Fe1s and I'm self teaching.....have discovered grinds will be necessity for March!!

Just because some examiners prefer it for clarity purposes. It started with property and now some people do it for all of them.
It's non essential, but if you like to make the cases stand out so nothing is accidentally missed then go for it.

Thats it basically

Yohnathan

Does anyone know what the grind schools are tipping for Criminal please?

The Talking Bread

Yohnathan wrote: »

Does anyone know what the grind schools are tipping for Criminal please?

Personally, going by trends of past exams, it is extremely hard to see any half definitive theme of topic appearance as so many topics cross over but a few topics I'd make sure I DONT MISS OUT ON (ie if you were to take your chances, ommitting certain topics) are insanity,lawful use of force, criminal damage, provocation, causation, criminal damage, ommissions, maybe definition of crime (all less frequent but due to come up, going on indefinitive but percentage calculating prediction)
An essay on recklessness may appear also

And then of course the ones you can't omit, Homicide, NFOAP crimes, Sexual offences, incohate offences, bail and arrest, intoxication, property offences.

Only ones I am ommitting are
The Courts,
Perjury
Contempt,
mens rea (as an essay question, obviously you need to know its principles)
Public order offences (although have a look over just to know the essential bits and pieces)
necessity (as an essay question, again, know how to recognise it for a defence reference)
Mistake (same as necessity)

And then the obvious ones most unlikely to come up ever, infantcide, suicide, abortion, offences against state, infancy, intention (again I mean as an essay question, obviously know how it applies to a crime, sources, purpose and classification of a crime (latter came up last sitting and never really comes up. )

Its just about trusting your own instincts based on trends.

dd19

Hi Guys,

Would anyone mind telling me what came up in the last sitting for EU?

Supermax1988

LawGuy2016 wrote: »

Today, in the exam i did:

(1) Essay on Penalty Clauses (I was happy with this)
(2) Essay on terms made before a contract entered into (I was happy with this)
(3) Problem Question on Mistake and Frustration (I was happy with this)
(4) Essay on Past Consideration and PE (This was short and rushed but not awful)
(5) Problem question on Misrepresentation and Damages/Privity Exception (Stupidly, I answered the first part of this question on breach and Hong Kong Firs etc, I know, I know, so stupid as there wasn't even a contract to begin with. I put it down to exhaustion/exam nerves/pressure and running out of time and so I sped-read the question. I wouldn't mind but I had studied Misrepresentation in detail so I instantly should have spotted it and been able answer that part of the question correctly . I answered the second part of the question correctly on damages/emotion distrees/agency exception etc etc.

As I am now essentially being marked out of 4.5/5, do I have any hope of passing this exam? I need to pass my exams this sitting or I lose a TC. Is the contract examiner a tough marker? Any stories of completely and blatantly ****ing up half a question and still passing the exam? Really, I had three good question, one waffly one and one awful one.

Have heard of people only answering 4 questions before and still passing.

Think about it. If you managed to get 13/20 in 4 of the questions then you've passed.

Also I think that the misrepresentation part is only worth a third of the question (because there were parts a, b and c).

Sounds to me like it went better than you think. Nothing you can do about it now anyways. Put it behind you and move to the next exam.