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

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm doing the exact same plus Liability for Animals (probably won't come up but if it does it's easy). I'm feeling the same about Defamation, I might learn the general principles and the key cases just in case.

Yeah I think I'm gonna do it. It seems like too much of a gamble.

jewels652 wrote: »

Am I crazy not to cover them?

They're small topics, so they're good wild card options. I don't expect them to come up but if they do I'll be laughing.

You've loads down though. I'd be truly amazed if your didn't have enough for questions.

PuffleHuffLyra wrote: »

Hope everyone's getting on okay!

It's my first sitting - just trying to work out how I'm gonna get there. Is it easy to walk from the Luas stop nearest the hotel to the hotel? I was just looking at google maps and it seems to be a massive roundabout area, no idea if it's possible to walk/how long it'll take me. Any help? I'll be getting the Luas on the red line from town out to the hotel.

Yeah you can walk. There's a pedestrian bridge. It's a 3 or 4 minute walk from the Luas stop.

bigtophat13 wrote: »

It really is such a toss up with contract, I'm the same, if I can I'll do 4 problems and one essay. It's usually more technical aspects so I'm gonna try have a knowledge of when they have the duty to contract in good faith as that came up both 2017 papers as an essay and in a problem last exam so he clearly likes it and it wasn't an essay last time. Privity was 2 of the last 3 so I'm leaving that out as I don't think it'll be an essay on it's own again, at most an A or B scenario. I want to have a knowledge also of their interpretation of documents although that's quite heavy and maybe know lots on the formal requirements of contracts for sale of land as they asked that in a form 2 of the last 5 (although once mixed with part performance). Besides that they like termination too, usually in relation to hong kong firs and that line but that was up last too. It really is random. Would be lovely to have something along the lines of consideration come up as it has before!

where does the good faith topic come up? what questions and chapter ist hat?

Fuguestate wrote: »

Cheers!

The relevant chapter I'm using in my manual (I won't say which college) is a mess. It's riddled with typos and isn't explained very well.

In any event, in Glencar v Mayo (a case predominantly about pure economic loss) the Court recognised the Hedley Byrne position. That's a 2002 case. Caparo is 1990. So If I'm answering this I'm going with Hedley/Glencar but also flagging how the Caparo decision refined Hedley with a four part test that cuts right to the core of the knowledge/purpose nexus.

Two recent cases -
Walsh (reaffirmed Hedley)
Bates (focused on nature of the info and the relationship between the parties)

If anyone has any colleges predictions, please share!

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

jjjjjop wrote: »

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

I would definitely cover SLP as well, it comes up nearly every sitting and also borrowing by the company is extremely popular as well so that would be another good one to try and cover

Has anyone ever sent their legislation to be checked by post?

My first exam is Company on Wednesday but I wont be in Dublin until around 4 on Tuesday so i'm thinking of sending my Companies Act to the Red Cow Hotel by post with next day delivery tomorrow just to be sure I get it checked in time.

Has anyone here done this before, or does anyone know if they normally stay around later during the day of an exam to take legislation?

Also the Red Cow won't deal with it for you and the Society won't accept it by post.

yournerd wrote: »

where does the good faith topic come up? what questions and chapter ist hat?

I did it from Implied terms in a Clark and Clarke book and reading some reports and then searching online, implied terms should be the spot anywhere

Has anyone got predictions for Criminal or what they think might come up?

I've covered all Offences and Defences, AR, MR, Complicity.

I haven't yet covered practice and procedure- courts, arrest/warrant, bail etc.. or classification? Does anyone think an essay on Strict Liability is due a run?

Any advice much appreciated!!

Does any legend want to give me a short breakdown of the cases they'd use + the relevant law for a PQ in Vicarious Liability? Or even have an up to date sample answer that I could use? Freaking out I will help you in any way I can

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Does any legend want to give me a short breakdown of the cases they'd use + the relevant law for a PQ in Vicarious Liability? Or even have an up to date sample answer that I could use? Freaking out I will help you in any way I can

Hi ya
I can’t sleep so I will give it a try. I am only covering vicarious liability briefly so here we go:
Vicarious liability: the principle that makes a 3rd party liable for the act of a separate wrongdoer. Note that control over tortfeasor is essential.

Salmond principle: A master is liable for the act he had not authorised, as long the act is connected with an act he had authorised. Salmond principle was adopted in the case of Lynch v Binacle 2011.

Moynihan v Moynihan: Sc grandmother was liable for act of daughter who left teapot unattended within reach of granddaughter.

Note: head of household was the basis for liability no dependent on family relationships.

So two issues to consider:
1. Is there a relationship of control or akin to employment
2. Is the tortious act within the relationship of control

Is there a master/servant relationship
Phelan v Coilte: plaintiff worked for def and was paid hourly rate, he paid his own taxes, supplied his own tools and no paid holidays. The court held that there was a master/ servant relationship and found employer liable.
But in
Carrol v Post national lottery: the court found that there wasn’t a master/ servant relationship. Plaintiff worked in a shop where lottery was sold.

Is act within relationship of control

If not, then there is no vicarious liability

Smith v stages: Two employees send to do work far away. Travel expenses covered by employer. Employees left work early and were in a car accident. The court founo that employees were within employers hours and was vicarious liable.
Boyle v Ferguson: employee was car salesman. Was allowed to take car with him all the time to promote business, fuel was paid by employer. One night he was out with two women and had a car accident. The court found employer vicariously liable.

The test is whether the employee is doing what he is employed to do.
If the act is not connected with employment then is a Frolic.

Daniels v whets: bouncer Woking in a nightclub, assaulted plaintiff twice. The court held that the first act was within scope of employment but the second act was a frolic not in connection with employment.

Usual questions that come are when an employee commits a tort while at work. One of the questions that came up was about an ambulance guy a girl had an accident and he used her phone to call her father. It turned out it wasn’t her phone and rang the wrong guy he was in shock and the question considered was whether who was liable the employer of the ambulance guy or not.

Initially when reading the question I thought it was about nervous shock so if in doubt just consider the two issues just in case.

Also consider the sexual abuse cases

Bazsley v curry Canada 1999 ct held that vicarious liability is appropriate where there is a CLOSE CONNECTION between the creation or enhancement of a risk and the wrongs that acrue therefrom, even if related to employers desire.

Delahunty v southern health board
Master of an orphanage sexually assaulted a visitor the court held that there was no strong connection but result would have been different if he had assaulted an inmate.

Lister v hasley the court found that there was a close connection. Must be a connection between the duties of employee and tort committed.

O’Keffe v Hickey sexually assaulted by teacher court applied the close connection test.

More recently court adopted the close connection test in the case of Elmontem v Nethercross 2014.

That’s all I got. I hope it helps.