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

legallyginger wrote: »

Contract
Misrepresentation: worthwhile learning contracts "uberrimae fides" and basis of the contract? Has never come up really debating it

Yes, new legislation in this area commenced in September
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/53/enacted/en/html

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

CiaraND16 wrote: »

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

The grid I have says Consideration and Privity

CiaraND16 wrote: »

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

This is touching on a range of doctrines. The main thing theyr looking for is a discussion of the maxim that a promise to fulfill a pre existing contractual duty cant amount to to sufficient consideration. The facts are similar to Williams v Roffey Brothers so Id be giving them everything I have on that case. That case basically provides an exception to that rule. I think youd get marks for discussing the rule against past consideration as well.
The fact theyv specifically mentioned duress probably merits a brief discussion of that as well. I think my answer to this would be a very brief discussion on what a penalty clause is and why it probably wont be enforceable. A few paragraphs on the consideration aspect, one paragraph on the duress aspect and then a couple of paragraphs on the breach of contract issue.
Everything is complicated by the privity issue [whether Maire can recover as against Charles cus she didnt actually enter a contract with him] so I imagine youd have to give that some discussion to get a high mark. Bit of a nightmare of a question actually because of the range of issues. Think Id avoid it if if possible.

Locus standing, property rights, right to earn a livelihood (for employers) equality as to the age.

for people that have extra time, what does your exam length say on better examinations?

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have contract law sample answers? I can swap with other materials if needed.

Thanks

SKLaw wrote: »

Sure would you mind sending me your email?

Could you pm me as every time I try to pm you it logs me out

fe12020oct wrote: »

does anybody have the March 2020 equity paper they could send me ?

I have what’s your email address

ellachapman96 wrote: »

Does anyone think just covering unconstitutionally obtained evidence and access to solicitor would be too risk for the trial in due course chapter? It's just so big and I have to start cutting stuff

i have down the big issues to cover in trial in due course of law:

- right to silence
- access to legal advice
- unconstitutionally obtained evidence
- undue delay

so even if you learned a couple of cases to be on the safe side for the other sub topics so you can answer a full question if it came up.

Does anyone know for donatia mortis causa would you apply the test in Re Wasserberg to a problem question or the test in Bentham V Potterton?

fe12020oct wrote: »

EQUITY

If estoppel comes up this year is it more likely to be a prob q or essay on unconscionability? Thinking of leaving the latter out but not sure if that’s a bad idea

does people think estoppel may come up? i was thinking since it was on the last 2 sittings it might be unlikely but maybe i should cover it should i?

FE1new wrote: »

EQUITY

I've run out of time and only have interlocutory, mandatory interlocutory and quia timet done. Do you think its okay to leave out Maerva and Anton Pillar?

Im leaving out anton pillar because it was up last 2 sittings...im studying mareva even though it came up last time because it did come up twice in a row in 2018!

i am hoping though for Mareva again or mandatory i only know 2/3 cases for QT just incase

Is the following enough for equity do you think? I'm so stuck for time. My other 3 took up too much of my study time and I've left this exam:

Specific Performance
Estoppel
Tracing
Trustees
Charitable trusts
Strong v bird, DMC, Hastings Bass rule
Recission and undue influence (not well at all)
Mandatory interlocutory injunctions, QT injunctions.

Is there anything else that is quick and easy to cover?

equity

this might be a stupid question but in a prob q for mandatory injunctions would the correct approach be to apply the general campus oil principles then go on to discuss the requirement for likelihood for success at trial with case law and then apply to facts of case?