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

user115 wrote: »

I think you have it all covered, only other ones I can think of are Consumer Rights Directive 2011 and Consumer Sales Directive 1999. The Sales Directive was transposed via European Communities Directive 2003. This question came up for me last year had a lot prepped on it. I didn't go into any case law as the question never asked for it and examiner commented that I should have so be sure and throw in a few cases to make sure your well covered. Last year it was essay and then you could have applied Unfair Ct terms to another problem question so consumer law def worth doing, she definitely really likes consumer law qs

Does anyone have any cases for the EU directives section? I have a couple for the SOG but couldn't find any cases for the EU stuff

sbbyrne wrote: »

Can someone explain Initial/Subsequent failure with regards to Cy-Pres doctrine please? I keep getting the two confused, even though i dont think its that complicated!

Thanks!

(I know there was a post a few pages back but i can't seem to find it again!)

Initial failure something like a trust for the prevention of smallpox right now in 2019 when it has been cured, that fails as there is no such disease.

Subsquent failure something like a trust is 1950 set up to prevent small box, then when smallpox was cured in the 1970s what can one do with the money left? Go to court and the court can use Cy pres so that the money can be used for something else eg malaria prevention.

sbbyrne wrote: »

That's a great way of explaining it, i get it now, finally! Thank you so much that's really helpful!

Agreed. Very helpful.

Can someone confirm in what context the Charitable question came up in the last sitting. Problem q, pure cy-pres, etc?

EU

Think I might swap free movement of workers for private international law but not sure that's a wise choice. I've bit the bullet and learned competition law so just don't have time for the full internal market chapter! Just feel there is so much to do for EU it's impossible to get it all covered, hoping it's a sound paper

Does anyone have a case summary of king v dubrey? Only roughly making up notes for DMC now

For EU I’ve covered;
Institutions
Enforcement proceedings (258&260)
Article 263
FMOG
General principles
Equality
Competition 101 &102
Supremacy
Direct effect
Citizenship
Free movement of workers
Freedom of establishment

Anything marjorly important I’m forgetting??

nimcdona wrote: »

I'll have time to do estoppel or recission, anyone any thoughts on which one might hold more importance?

Estoppel came last time really easy q too... idk if recission did (I didn't study it as far as I remember). Yeah see poster above, it's on like 3 different FE1 exams, four if you want to count legitimate expectation so you might as well cover it! I'm presuming you're talking about the equity exam.

Contract law - covering:

Offer and Acceptance
Consideration
Promissory estoppel
Capacity
Terms
Exemption clauses
Consumer
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Duress
Undue influence
Discharge
Damages

Surely enough??

Legal_Eagle_95 wrote: »

Lads probs too late now but I emailed the OPW on Friday to see about buying a copy of the Consumer legislation - heard nada then or today (I know it's a Bank Holiday) but just wondering is that the correct procedure? Or is there another way to buy it?

Think they only email you back to tell you to ring the office! I'd say ring them first thing tomorrow.

Thanks a mill - will call them tomorrow! Also anyone got any info on the contract examiner - what's the pass rate like, are they strict and what do they like to see? Thanks

Eu

Would it be safe to leave out preliminary reference proceedings and all of competition law?? Covering everything else

Thanks

Hi all. I have a question regarding Trusts for Prevention or Relief of Poverty which hopefully somebody might be able to clarify.

Is it still the case that any of the charitable purposes also need to have a public benefit?

Given that s.3(8) of the Charities Act 2009 provides that a limitation on the persons who may benefit will not be justified where any of the intended beneficiaries have a personal connection with the donor, does this now mean that the poor relations case law will no longer apply? And if a future trust presents facts such as that in Re Segelman (gift for poor and needy members of a class of testators relations), would this trust not be seems as a charitable trust?

Would appreciate any opinions!

Cheers

SwD wrote: »

Estoppel, plus cases are simple. Test is straightforward: assurance; reliance; detriment.

Fe12017 wrote: »

Hi all. I have a question regarding Trusts for Prevention or Relief of Poverty which hopefully somebody might be able to clarify.

Is it still the case that any of the charitable purposes also need to have a public benefit?

Given that s.3(8) of the Charities Act 2009 provides that a limitation on the persons who may benefit will not be justified where any of the intended beneficiaries have a personal connection with the donor, does this now mean that the poor relations case law will no longer apply? And if a future trust presents facts such as that in Re Segelman (gift for poor and needy members of a class of testators relations), would this trust not be seems as a charitable trust?

Would appreciate any opinions!

Cheers

Yes they still need to have a public benefit under s(3)(2) 2009 Act: "A purpose shall not be a charitable purpose unless it is of public benefit."

And also yes, Biehler notes that the "poor relations" and "poor employees" cases will rarely be applied in Ireland going forward except under the very limited section in s(3)(7) 2009 Act "having regard to the nature of the purpose of the gift".

So basically verrrry limited re future poor & need relatives cases in Ireland. Seglemen dcd was English though so I don't know if the same can be said for England & Wales. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong!

lisac223 wrote: »

Just two tiny ones:

Williams v Mayne: the court said when the donee obtains a benefit he cannot relinquish the burden.

Cooper v Cooper: court noted there is an obligation on the donee to give full effect to the instrument which bestowed his benefit.

Thank you!

Are people covering illegal contracts for contract?