Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…144145147149150…334

Comments

  • #4382
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Well.. usual torture of exam post-mortem - how did people find tort?

    I thought the passing off q was lovely and defamation question ok.

    Really struggled to identify topics for Murr? My answer will give me nightmares!


  • #4383
    LawStudent1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 ✭LawStudent1234


    Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?


  • #4384
    nmurphy1441
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    LawStudent1234 wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?

    I did it on general negligence and liability for defect products act!


  • #4385
    rightytighty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    LawStudent1234 wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?

    Product Liability and Causation I went with anyway


  • #4386
    law_struggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53 ✭✭law_struggles


    Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • #4387
    law_struggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53 ✭✭law_struggles


    Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?


  • #4388
    LawStudent1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 ✭LawStudent1234


    rightytighty wrote: »
    Product Liability and Causation I went with anyway

    Thank god! Thanks a mill! I didn’t go into the material contribution test etc but did talk on causation do you think that this was needed?


  • #4389
    rightytighty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    law_struggles wrote: »
    Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

    I don’t know, I thought nervous shock was for witnesses of accidents and aftermaths etc so I went with duty of care, causation and remoteness, and damages for loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering


  • #4390
    rightytighty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    LawStudent1234 wrote: »
    Thank god! Thanks a mill! I didn’t go into the material contribution test etc but did talk on causation do you think that this was needed?

    I just briefly discussed multiple source/material increase in risk because it was undetermined whether the steering fault caused the crash


  • #4391
    Lallers96
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭Lallers96


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well.. usual torture of exam post-mortem - how did people find tort?

    I thought the passing off q was lovely and defamation question ok.

    Really struggled to identify topics for Murr? My answer will give me nightmares!

    Literally the same i know I chose to answer it but what the f*ck was question 7 lol

    Overall a decent paper, wouldn't have called it easy though. Would've loved a question on occupiers liability or nervous shock as I knew that inside out!


  • Advertisement
  • #4392
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rightytighty wrote: »
    I don’t know, I thought nervous shock was for witnesses of accidents and aftermaths etc so I went with duty of care, causation and remoteness, and damages for loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering

    I went with false imprisonment, nervous shock and vicarious/ employers liability! Oh god...


  • #4393
    nmurphy1441
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    law_struggles wrote: »
    Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

    I would say it’s right in a sense although emotional distress would be more correct under trespass to the person


  • #4394
    nmurphy1441
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    rightytighty wrote: »
    I just briefly discussed multiple source/material increase in risk because it was undetermined whether the steering fault caused the crash

    I also went down the route of duty to warm and possible duty to recall a defective product! Oh god!


  • #4395
    rightytighty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    nmurphy1441 wrote: »
    I also went down the route of duty to warm and possible duty to recall a defective product! Oh god!

    Yeah I said those too those are both right!


  • #4396
    nmurphy1441
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    Anyone do the limitations question and how did you go about it?


  • #4397
    Ianmc97
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 ✭Ianmc97


    law_struggles wrote: »
    Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

    I went with trespass to the person ( false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress with 5 lines on no assault as she didnt see the bucket of ice water) then possible nervous shock if she could show her injuries were shock induced and due to fear of being burnt rather than just psychological injuries due to being made fun of in work


  • #4398
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What did people advise for old man Murr in the Park?


  • #4399
    HappyKitten62
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭HappyKitten62


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What did people advise for old man Murr in the Park?

    I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness


  • #4400
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    HappyKitten62 wrote: »
    I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness

    Oh gosh I did battery and public nuisance...like I said, that answer will give me nightmares


  • #4401
    Louis Litt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 105 ✭✭Louis Litt


    That was an awkward paper. disappointed with it


  • Advertisement
  • #4402
    channing90
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 178 ✭✭channing90


    What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?


  • #4403
    Ianmc97
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 ✭Ianmc97


    channing90 wrote: »
    What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

    I went with private nuisance and negligence with small bit of remoteness and contributory negligence


  • #4404
    Emmaslaw17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 ✭Emmaslaw17


    Beyond disappointed with that, thought the problem questions were tough to make sense of so had to do 2 essays - let's pray he likes my interpretation of defamation and social media... Tricky to apply knowledge to those questions


  • #4405
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    I answered Q 3 on nervous shock. I had planned on answer on infliction of emotional distress also but ran out of time.

    It's very similar to a question that came up a sitting or two ago and I'm fairly sure the examiner gave marks for those who answered it on nervous shock and those who answered it on emotional distress so wouldn't be worried

    Q6 was products liability I'm pretty sure


  • #4406
    LawStudent1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 ✭LawStudent1234


    nmurphy1441 wrote: »
    Anyone do the limitations question and how did you go about it?

    For question 8 I talked about how s.48 allows the law to bend etc but used basically all my notes aswell


  • #4407
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    For the limitations Q I mainly talked about the introduction of discoverability rules as well as disabilities, also briefly mentioned estoppel and fraud and then just wrote undue influence and a load of cases cos I ran out of time lol


  • #4408
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    channing90 wrote: »
    What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

    I went with trespass to land but accidentally threw in continuity requirement of nuisance. Also mentioned possibly contributory negligence but only wrote a sentence and said it was unlikely as it wasn’t a reasonably foreseeable consequence of her actions!


  • #4409
    Lallers96
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭Lallers96


    HappyKitten62 wrote: »
    I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness

    Same phew!

    Also hey Defamation Again?! I mean, I'm glad I studied that but wow its practically a guaranteed Q now


  • #4410
    JCormac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 131 ✭✭JCormac


    nmurphy1441 wrote: »
    I also went down the route of duty to warm and possible duty to recall a defective product! Oh god!

    Completely disregarded the common law in the question. Damn.

    Did anyone else go with the 1991 Act only?


  • Advertisement
  • #4411
    HappyKitten62
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭HappyKitten62


    Lallers96 wrote: »
    Same phew!

    Also hey Defamation Again?! I mean, I'm glad I studied that but wow its practically a guaranteed Q now

    Yes! Like I figured with all the complicated facts it had to come under causation remoteness etc


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement