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

Anyone tell me if opression needs to be suffered qua member or not? Thanks!

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Anyone tell me if opression needs to be suffered qua member or not? Thanks!

Oppression under s. 212 (1) (a) must be suffered by a member but can be suffered in that member’s capacity as director

Disregard of interests under s. 212 (1) (b) must be suffered by a member in their capacity as member

I think!

What's the Contract Law pass rate?

supercreative wrote: »

Oct 19 paper wasn't too fun but generally it's pretty predictable and the pass rates haven't fallen below 70% since Oct 13 as far as I know. I don't really understand EU law completely and it was not my ideal paper but got 61, know the main areas and look at some past papers and you'll be grand.

I feel Eu is more predictable like you can get away with covering 8 topics and the questions are clear and easily to understand. Unlike constitutional where you have to cover the bones of 17 to 25 topics and it is very difficult to identify the questions. The Eu lecturer is not getting out of his way to catch us unlike the other lecturer.

EAL2019 wrote: »

When discussing terms, I've noticed that some manuals/cases talk about distinguishing between "conditions and warranties" and some talk about distinguishing between "warranties and mere representations".


Am I right in saying that conditions, warranties and mere representations are three different things?


Its just that sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably and its confusing

Ya I've them as three separate things..
 Conditions - are terms that are deemed sufficiently important enough grant party right of election, can be used either to end/affirm a contract or sue for damages if breached.
 Warranties – are less important terms that entitle a party to sue for damages if breached.
 Innominate terms – are unclassified terms which are only labelled when consequences of their breach become known.
 Mere Representations - statements designed to induce parties into the contract are not a binding term, false statements give rise to action in misrepresentation.

EAL2019 wrote: »

When discussing terms, I've noticed that some manuals/cases talk about distinguishing between "conditions and warranties" and some talk about distinguishing between "warranties and mere representations".


Am I right in saying that conditions, warranties and mere representations are three different things?


Its just that sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably and its confusing

Think you're mixing up s12/13 etc sale by description. Those contain conditions and warranties.

Mere representation is when someone says something in connection with a contract, which induces the other into the contract. Is it a warranty = IE Binding, or just a mere representation (sales puff) = Not binding

Example - Carey v Independent Newspaper - It was important to her, and stated as a reason for her entering her new contract employment, she could come in later in the morning as she had to organise her children before work.

Question of whether warranty or mere representation - As she had stated it was important, had relied on it and had induced her into contract = Court held warranty and binding.

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

What are the topics people are banking on for Contract?

Offer/Acceptance
Consideration
Consumer Protection
Terms/Exemption Clauses
Remedies
Discharge
Mistake/Misrep

I feel like its the bare minimum but i don't have time to do more!

bobbyness wrote: »

Think you're mixing up s12/13 etc sale by description. Those contain conditions and warranties.

No, within the category of "term" there are conditions and warranties. Both are legally binding, ie terms rather than mere representations, but a breach of a condition allows you to repudiate the contract whereas breach of a warranty only allows damages.



Your analysis of the terms/representations distinction is correct but the conditions/warranties distinction applies to all contracts, not just goods/services.


Assuming they obviously have specific definitions in the Sale of Goods Act though (haven't got to revising that yet eek, so thanks for the heads up!)


Open to correction but like 95% sure thats corrects thanks to ahhhhhFE1s comment

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Contract

Interpreting express terms??? Is that The Plain meaning rule, the Factual Matrix rule and the Contra Proferentem rule?

The Parol Evidence rule is there too if I’m right above but it’s always asked not to mention it!

I've those under construction of terms.. I've warranty v mere representation under express terms and the parole evidence rule.. But look wouldn't be entirely confident what I have is right!

Breacnua wrote: »

Changes every sitting but 60% on a fairly good sitting

She looks for precise answers, avoid waffle and plenty case law.

Reports are good and from my memory she likes following;

Terms are a feature on most papers with a reference to RECENT case law

Innominate term is rarely to her satisfaction so it’s asked a lot

Exclusion clauses and S14 comes up a lot

Dakota packaging - getting out of a long understanding goodwill oral contract

Remedies question is rarely mixed with other chapters and worth spending time on

Don’t rely on mistake coming up in a big way

Ensure capacity privity illegal undue influence are known enough for Pq

Consideration I feel will be an essay question or full pq

Have you seen a consideration essay come up in any other way other than to discuss the relationship between it and promissory estoppel?

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Tbh currently thinking about dropping general principles because it's quite long. Might take up judicial review instead

So my notes for the institutions are long so I decided to memorise the night before notes verbatim is that too short then ?? I just memorised the roles I didn’t bother with the other bits such as legislative procedures, democratic deficit and separation of powers. Am I taking the piss

Does anyone have the October 19 Company Exam Report? Or even any guidance on what they were looking for on the Corporate Borrowing Q?

jewels652 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

like I added a line on each as how they changed post Lisbon but that’s all. Maybe I should just face the music and quit the short cuts

Thats more or less all I'll have for them too! Main Treaty Articles, composition, functions and how they were changed under Lisbon. Like theres only so much you can really know about them.



For the democratic deficit angle its mostly about whether the Lisbon changes were sufficient etc and whether the role of the Parliament in particular is sufficient, so you'd basically have that covered anyway.