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

Sineaddh wrote: »

if it came up so much on the last paper is it still likely to come up this time?

I feel like Misrepresentation and Terms keep coming up all the time and can't be left out

Brilliant, thank you, I won't forget that one for sure now!!

ihatethesea wrote: »

I try and think of how the name could some how relate to the facts of a case. One example is to remember that in Hyde v Wrench, a counter offer amounts to rejection of original offer I think "If i wanted to reject someone I would HYDE"
They can get quite silly but its the only thing that works for me!

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Took a look at the questions for Damages there, is it generally the same question every time?

Looks like if you just hit the points below (unless the question restricts you to only aggravated and punitive), you should be good... Is it a lot more nuanced or would this basic outline suffice for an answer on it?

- Compensatory Damages
(i) Pecuniary
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive Damages
- Nominal & Contemptuous

Exactly yeah! That’s what I’ve done anyway!

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Took a look at the questions for Damages there, is it generally the same question every time?

Looks like if you just hit the points below (unless the question restricts you to only aggravated and punitive), you should be good... Is it a lot more nuanced or would this basic outline suffice for an answer on it?

- Compensatory Damages
(i) Pecuniary
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
- Aggravated Damages
- Punitive Damages
- Nominal & Contemptuous

Exactly yeah! That’s what I’ve done anyway!

mcgreee wrote: »

EU

Thoughts on Equivalence and Effectiveness being asked again this year?

Is that free movement of goods? :€

channing90 wrote: »

Eu
I have :
citizenship
DE
Judicial review
Equality
Free movement of goods
Institutions
Kinda know general principles
People’s thoughts ?

Throw in workers if you can. Is short enough.

rightytighty wrote: »

Wasn’t that just on the October paper?

It was but he's asked it twice in a row before and I'm paro it'll come up again

Oh god I nearly panicked there. Not doing general principles so I should be fine

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

It might not be listed as a specific topic on its own, but it would probably be in whatever chapter the condition/warranty distinction is.

So some terms are conditions, a breach of which allow the contract to be repudiated, and some are warranties which only lead to damages if breached.

Innominate terms are terms that can’t be clearly classified as either conditions or warranties.

The main case is Hong Kong Fir Shipping, where the privy council (I think? English anyway) basically said that terms shouldn’t be “pigeon holed” as either conditions or warranties and their categorisation depends on the degree of the breach, ie how serious it’s effects are. That approach was adopted in Irish Telephone Rentals v ICS

There was a subsequent English decision Hansa Nord, where they set out factors to be considered: whether the term was expressly stated to be a C/W, whether it was impliedly stated, whether statute/case law gave a classification and whether the effect was such as to substantially deprive the party of all benefit.

I don’t actually have my notes in front of me right now so hopefully someone else will explain better, but hopefully that’ll give you a basic idea!

Sineaddh wrote: »

could someone explain innominate terms to me? i cant even identify it in my manual

I second this

mydogwentroof wrote: »

I second this

Something that is not defined as either a condition or a warranty. The effect of its breach will determine which one it actually is.so a court will decide which it is depending on the effect it has on the contract.
I swear I am not trying to wreck your head.

Just wondering if anyone had a spare copy of the succession act?

Sineaddh wrote: »

Misrepresentation

Would I be right in saying it’s actionable in tort for negligent and fraudulent - damages

If it’s innocent then it’s equity and can be rescinded?

Sales of Goods 1980 s. 45 - damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation too (unless the misrepresenting party had reasonable grounds to believe the misrepresentation and did believe it)

lawyersuffolk wrote: »

how do you know in a consumer protection Q whether to apply SOG leg or unfair regs??? I know MQ under SOG Act is only in course of business & consumer under SOG is person buying goods not in course of business - so is SOG = consumer not in course of business + is Unfair Terms Reg = re consumer to business contracts? getting very mixed reading past reports

I know unfair regs applies to terms that have not been individually negotiated so if there is some mention of term not having been discussed you would want to apply it but honestly I'd mention the two of the in any consumer protection question regardless