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

nmurphy1441 · 07-03-2020 05:09PM

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

For the last few sitting I’ve said I wasn’t going to cover defamation because I thought I couldn’t come up that much in a row!!!! Bad idea on my part! Cover as much as you can!!! Passing off is due a run I think, as is vicarious liability! But you’d never know!

CiaranS93 · 07-03-2020 05:11PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Are we covering tracing or prop estoppel?

Both came up last sitting. Can't see tracing coming up again but so short probably worth covering.

I'm going with:

Mareva
Purpose
3 Certainties
DMC
Undue influence
Trustees duties
Estoppel
Tracing

In that order

supercreative · 07-03-2020 05:11PM

lawstudentirl wrote: »

In the Irish case of Mills v. Shields and Kelly (1948) the DMC was valid even though the guy committed suicide.

That was because he wasn't contemplating suicide though I believe, if the gift is made in contemplation of death by suicide and then the suicide occurs it would be contrary to the old case-law (Agnew). As others have said, this would probably be decided differently now, but people should bear in mind that assisted suicide has come up in the DMC question occasionally and Fleming v Ireland would be a good one to cite for that to point out that assisted suicide isn't legal (also s2(2) Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993).

Jeremiah25 · 07-03-2020 05:14PM

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Both came up last sitting. Can't see tracing coming up again but so short probably worth covering.

I'm going with:

Mareva
Purpose
3 Certainties
DMC
Undue influence
Trustees duties
Estoppel
Tracing

In that order

No secret/resulting trusts?

lawstudentirl · 07-03-2020 05:17PM

supercreative wrote: »

That was because he wasn't contemplating suicide though I believe, if the gift is made in contemplation of death by suicide and then the suicide occurs it would be contrary to the old case-law (Agnew). As others have said, this would probably be decided differently now, but people should bear in mind that assisted suicide has come up in the DMC question occasionally and Fleming v Ireland would be a good one to cite for that to point out that assisted suicide isn't legal (also s2(2) Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993).

Thanks! I had no idea how to address the assisted suicide element.

CiaranS93 · 07-03-2020 05:18PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

No secret/resulting trusts?

Nope. Willing to take a gamble as I find it hard to distinguish between them.

The trust side is painful where the equity side is slightly more understand able in my opinion anyways.

On another note, city colleges sample answer for UI don't mention manifest disadvantage anywhere, can this be left out?

Jeremiah25 · 07-03-2020 05:20PM

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Nope. Willing to take a gamble as I find it hard to distinguish between them.

The trust side is painful where the equity side is slightly more understand able in my opinion anyways.

On another note, city colleges sample answer for UI don't mention manifest disadvantage anywhere, can this be left out?

I don't have anything on it either so hopefully so!

isawitfirst · 07-03-2020 05:26PM

I believe that it because it is in england that you have to prove manifest disadvantage. In Carroll v Carroll, Denham said you need to prove "substantial benefit" to the stronger party. A load of english cases said that you needed manifest disadvantage to the weaker party eg National Westminster bank v morgan but then in Prendergast v Joyce, Gilligan said we should stick with the Carroll way of doing things, rather than following the english route re manifest disadvantage.

Open to correction

Rainbow25 · 07-03-2020 05:28PM

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

I was planning to leave out defamation and employer's liability but cover the rest!

Jeremiah25 · 07-03-2020 05:31PM

Hastings & Bass was up last sitting wasn't it? Strong vs. Bird too?

leavingcert17 · 07-03-2020 05:50PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

No secret/resulting trusts?

I really don’t think that’s enough! Equity isn’t that predictable

bobbyness · 07-03-2020 06:32PM

Rainbow25 wrote: »

I was planning to leave out defamation and employer's liability but cover the rest!

Don't have any exam grids, but I'd expect it comes up quite a lot. It's just so topical and always coming up in new cases.

On the topic of grids. Anyone managed to source a Tort law exam grid?

ihatethesea · 07-03-2020 06:34PM

Does anybody have an EU grid? I have grids in contract, property, equity and criminal if anyone is stuck?

EAA123 · 07-03-2020 06:38PM

ihatethesea wrote: »

Does anybody have an EU grid? I have grids in contract, property, equity and criminal if anyone is stuck?

I have one. if you want to give me your email I can send you it

CiaranS93 · 07-03-2020 06:40PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Link to info on the Merck Sharpe and Dohme case - https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2019/07/31/supreme-court-rules-on-preliminary-injunction-test

Adequacy of damages is to be considered as part of the balance of convenience

"Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that "the preferable approach is to consider the adequacy of damages as part of the balance of convenience" assessment rather than a hurdle prior to that assessment. The adequacy of damages will continue to be "the most important component" of the balancing exercise. However, availability of damages will not be decisive, particularly where difficulty in calculation makes it likely that any damages awarded will not be a precise and perfect remedy."

So the test now is:

Bona fide case to be tried and balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages)?

And not adequacy of damages as a separate point?

iamanengine · 07-03-2020 06:52PM

CiaranS93 wrote: »

So the test now is:

Bona fide case to be tried and balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages)?

And not adequacy of damages as a separate point?

Yeah I believe that is the case.

Is it just UI that comes up under Rescission? Mistake and Misrep seems more Contract-y. My grid doesn't even have Rescission on it, it just has UI

CiaranS93 · 07-03-2020 07:01PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah I believe that is the case.

Is it just UI that comes up under Rescission? Mistake and Misrep seems more Contract-y. My grid doesn't even have Rescission on it, it just has UI

I think so but don't hold me to that

nmurphy1441 · 07-03-2020 07:11PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Hastings & Bass was up last sitting wasn't it? Strong vs. Bird too?

They did! Satisfaction could be a good one to know this time around

iamanengine · 07-03-2020 07:12PM

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

They did! Satisfaction could be a good one to know this time around

Satisfaction almost guaranteed for the note Q this sitting I reckon

DUMSURFER · 07-03-2020 08:02PM

iamanengine wrote: »

PM me your email

Any chance I could get in on this as well? Lost my LTD v DAC notes and only realized the other day and only have enough on SAP for my 5 reforms essay

iamanengine · 07-03-2020 08:28PM

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Any chance I could get in on this as well? Lost my LTD v DAC notes and only realized the other day and only have enough on SAP for my 5 reforms essay

Yeah, pm me your email

rightytighty · 07-03-2020 08:29PM

What is the company marker like?

jewels652 · 07-03-2020 09:10PM

Hi guys,
I am looking for short notes for competition law I have learning notes, grid to share.

Tia

Law1997 · 07-03-2020 09:14PM

Contract law

Can anyone explain then tenders part of offer and acceptance when it says it will accept the lowest bid offered? I’m very confused - also confused about privilege clauses that they don’t have to accept any bid.

Law1997 · 07-03-2020 09:23PM

Also what in God’s name is an innominate term?! My notes just say it’s not preclassified?

Is it.. where the parties haven’t said it’s a condition or a warranty, and in order to determine what it is, the courts look at the effect of its breach on the innocent party?

And Hong Kong Firs held that if it deprives the innocent party of the fundamental thing he contracted for, it’s a condition?

iamanengine · 07-03-2020 09:29PM

Law1997 wrote: »

Also what in God’s name is an innominate term?! My notes just say it’s not preclassified?

Is it.. where the parties haven’t said it’s a condition or a warranty, and in order to determine what it is, the courts look at the effect of its breach on the innocent party?

And Hong Kong Firs held that if it deprives the innocent party of the fundamental thing he contracted for, it’s a condition?

Yeah you're right, C determine whether it is a condition or warranty once breached based on seriousness of the consequences, fundamental breach = condition

Law1997 · 07-03-2020 09:37PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah you're right, C determine whether it is a condition or warranty once breached based on seriousness of the consequences, fundamental breach = condition

Thanks! Really finding contract confusing

JimmyJazzz · 07-03-2020 09:39PM

Law1997 wrote: »

Contract law

Can anyone explain then tenders part of offer and acceptance when it says it will accept the lowest bid offered? I’m very confused - also confused about privilege clauses that they don’t have to accept any bid.

Think of the tender process as an auction by writing. An invitor essentially says 'make me an offer' and prospective contractors submit bids (or 'tenders'). If the invite is for services the lowest bid offered is most desirable to the invitor (imagine a county council looking to have a playground built for the lowest price). If the invitor is selling something the highest bid would be preferable.

Tenders are invitations to treat but an invitor can ensure that they're taken as such by including a privilege clause ie a statement in the invite that they're not obliged to accept any bid in particular.

Law1997 · 07-03-2020 09:49PM

JimmyJazzz wrote: »

Think of the tender process as an auction by writing. An invitor essentially says 'make me an offer' and prospective contractors submit bids (or 'tenders'). If the invite is for services the lowest bid offered is most desirable to the invitor (imagine a county council looking to have a playground built for the lowest price). If the invitor is selling something the highest bid would be preferable.

Tenders are invitations to treat but an invitor can ensure that they're taken as such by including a privilege clause ie a statement in the invite that they're not obliged to accept any bid in particular.

Thank you so much it’s a lot clearer now! excellent example of the county council - thank you

iamanengine · 07-03-2020 10:05PM

Anyone else really really tired

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

Comments