Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-03-2013, 17:07   #1
Tom Young
Moderator
FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

This is the new FE1 Exam Thread

This is a link to the old one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055143169

This is a link to the next one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056907164

Sorry, I'm aware we are in the throws of FE1 season, but due to a server issue, a new thread was required. Old chats and posts below - Thanks!

Mod warning in post #1205: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1205

Mod warning in post #2555: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2555

Mod warning in post #2593: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2593

Moderator: The above warnings mean it is not ok to buy, sell or swap (trade) any exam materials in this thread. Exam grids are the only exception. You may request and exchange exam grids but at no point will money be allowed to change hands for them.
Tom Young is offline  
Advertisement
09-10-2019, 14:20   #2
EmmaO94
Registered User
 
EmmaO94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 96
That Contract paper caught me totally off guard

Was so ready for a nice juicy q on mistake, did not bank on misrep making a reappearance at all. Anyone else feel a bit shellshocked?
EmmaO94 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
09-10-2019, 14:38   #3
Daly29
Registered User
 
Daly29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawGirl3434 View Post
Could anyone explain art 30 and art 110 to me in very basic English?

In a problem Q, if he specifically says it is a tax - do you then presume it forms part of the internal taxation system and just start talking about 110(2) and and 110(1)?

If he calls it a charge, do you go through cases that set out test if forms part of internal taxation scheme?

Also - the test for art 30 and 110 seems to be the same? Imports and exports (or is that only for 110?), sake marketing stage and chargable event the same

Any help much appreciated so confused!
Differentiating Between Article 34 or Articles 30 and 110
Whilst all three of these Treaty articles apply to the free movement of goods, they are mutually exclusive.
Article 34 or Articles 30 and 110
Generally, Art 34 TFEU will apply whenever the national rule does not involve a pecuniary charge. Therefore, if the particular national measure being examined does not require the payment of money, Art 35 TFEU is the applicable Treaty Article. Whenever the national rule does require the payment of money, either Art 30 TFEU or Art 10 TFEU will govern the national rule.
Article 30 or Article 110
Both Art 30 TFEU and Art 110 TFEU apply where the national rule requires payment of money of the product. Art 110 TFEU will apply when the payment relates to the internal tax system of the MS. Art 30 will apply when the payment constitutes a customs duty or charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. An internal tax is a payment that must be made by imports, exports and goods produced domestically by the MS that impose the obligations to make the payment.
The practical significance of this distinction is that a customs duty is prohibited automatically pursuant to Art 30 TFEU, with certain narrow exceptions, whilst an internal tax is not prohibited by Art 110 TFEU unless it discriminates against imported goods or protects domestic goods, and it is only to the extent that it had this discriminatory protective effect. The case below shows how Art 110 measures of internal tax are to be distinguished from Art 30 customs duties.
Daly29 is offline  
Thanks from:
09-10-2019, 14:43   #4
supercreative
Registered User
 
supercreative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 75
EU Citizenship

Have a few questions if anyone's feeling generous!

1. Do "vocational students" (people who have retained their worker status and so are able to get maintenance grants as in Lair v Universitat Hannover, Brown v Sec of State for Scotland etc) have to have been working in the country right up until they start studying? As in if I work as an accountant from May to June in Spain and then start an accountancy course in October am I entitled to get a grant for it?

2. When they say that students aren't entitled to "maintenance grants" without permanent residence (Bidar; Forster) does that apply to grants/loans to cover the fees or just grants/loans to cover living expenses?
supercreative is offline  
09-10-2019, 14:43   #5
SwD
Registered User
 
SwD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmaO94 View Post
That Contract paper caught me totally off guard

Was so ready for a nice juicy q on mistake, did not bank on misrep making a reappearance at all. Anyone else feel a bit shellshocked?
Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.
SwD is offline  
Advertisement
09-10-2019, 14:43   #6
LawGirl3434
Registered User
 
LawGirl3434's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahhhhhFE1s View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by holliek View Post
This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge.

I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this!
This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than tax

Internal Taxation:
If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.
Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30.

ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]:
○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate.
○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and
○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products.
Thanks so much for this. Just to say my notes for SARL Denkavit Lawrie v France say it was held to be a 30 breach, because didn’t apply to imports and exports the same? This is the animal slaughter one, in denkavit v min for agriculture I have that was a 110?

Maybe my notes are wrong
LawGirl3434 is offline  
09-10-2019, 14:45   #7
LawGirl3434
Registered User
 
LawGirl3434's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawGirl3434 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahhhhhFE1s View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by holliek View Post
This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge.

I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this!

This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than tax

Internal Taxation:
If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.
Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30.

ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]:
○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate.
○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and
○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products.
Thanks so much for this. Just to say my notes for SARL Denkavit Lawrie v France say it was held to be a 30 breach, because didn’t apply to imports and exports the same? This is the animal slaughter one, in denkavit v min for agriculture I have that was a 110?

Maybe my notes are wrong
Wait sorry think figured out the confusion on my end - animal slaughter was 30, animal feed was 110
LawGirl3434 is offline  
09-10-2019, 14:48   #8
EmmaO94
Registered User
 
EmmaO94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwD View Post
Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.
Yeah I was very hard pushed to answer five too. Learned my lesson the hard way today - not to rely on predictions
EmmaO94 is offline  
09-10-2019, 14:48   #9
iamanengine
Registered User
 
iamanengine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,876
I thought Contract was a tough paper but I was very lucky as I could only answer 5 Qs but they were topics I knew fairly well.

Thanks to everyone on here over the last few weeks.

Absolutely exhausted but relieved to be done. Having come nowhere close to getting the magic 3 last sitting think I’m in with a good shout this time.

I’m going to go drink myself into a coma now.
iamanengine is offline  
Advertisement
09-10-2019, 14:48   #10
Daly29
Registered User
 
Daly29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamanengine View Post
This is what I think came up anyway

Q1 Exclusion Clause/Consumer Protection - S.14
Q2 Promissory Estoppel/Implied Terms - Business Efficacy Test
Q3 Misrep, I think, didn’t do this
Q4 Undue Influence, I think, didn’t do this
Q5 Damages - Mitigation
Q6 Breach - Anticipatory, repudiatory and innominate terms
Q7 Privity
Q8 a. Construction of Terms - I answered on factual matrix test and mentioned parol evidence b. Not sure what this is

Would appreciate input here as I’m hoping I answered on the correct topics!!
sigh, made a fairly obvious error on Q1.... Should still be a pass (i hope)
Daly29 is offline  
09-10-2019, 14:56   #11
niamh1612
Registered User
 
niamh1612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 47
Am I right in saying the only element of offer and acceptance was auction without reserve? Really strange paper, my last out of the magic three and almost definitely failed, answered 3 good and then half of two questions. Very disappointing.
niamh1612 is offline  
Thanks from:
09-10-2019, 15:00   #12
Fe1hayes
Registered User
 
Fe1hayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 39
I know people are very busy but eu paper last sitting I don't have the report. Would anyone who has it or would know how to answer qu flow? What is the relevance that they are state funded?
Fe1hayes is offline  
09-10-2019, 15:02   #13
Daly29
Registered User
 
Daly29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by niamh1612 View Post
Am I right in saying the only element of offer and acceptance was auction without reserve? Really strange paper, my last out of the magic three and almost definitely failed, answered 3 good and then half of two questions. Very disappointing.
Suppose at a stretch you could say there was offer/acceptance to be looked at re the no signature and emailed agreement in Q1.... Was happy until I somehow noticed that I read the limitation clause as not affecting statutory obligation. Ugh, saw covered statutory warranty and made an obvious mistake. Hope he goes easy on that mistake. Only had undue influence for the old dude and the guarantee. Said the bank should have red flagged it because of the manifest disadvantage, thought that wasn't the worst approach. Anyway , one more to go.
Daly29 is offline  
09-10-2019, 15:07   #14
niamh1612
Registered User
 
niamh1612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daly29 View Post
Suppose at a stretch you could say there was offer/acceptance to be looked at re the no signature and emailed agreement in Q1.... Was happy until I somehow noticed that I read the limitation clause as not affecting statutory obligation. Ugh, saw covered statutory warranty and made an obvious mistake. Hope he goes easy on that mistake. Only had undue influence for the old dude and the guarantee. Said the bank should have red flagged it because of the manifest disadvantage, thought that wasn't the worst approach. Anyway , one more to go.
God I talked about unfair terms! For q 1 didn't even think of offer! I had unilateral mistake for the old guy BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME couldn't think of the term non est factum. Good luck the end is near!!
niamh1612 is offline  
09-10-2019, 15:14   #15
Daly29
Registered User
 
Daly29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by niamh1612 View Post
God I talked about unfair terms! For q 1 didn't even think of offer! I had unilateral mistake for the old guy BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME couldn't think of the term non est factum. Good luck the end is near!!
It was a small part of the Q in fairness, the offer/acceptance part... I wrote "not what I signed up to" in kind of fancy handwriting to try to make it look a bit Latin :-) answer was basically saying the deal should never have happened regardless because the bank should have called him in or got him legal advice so kept banging on that.
Daly29 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet