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

«134567…334

Comments

  • #2
    EmmaO94
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭EmmaO94


    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?


  • #3
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    LawGirl3434 wrote: »
    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.


  • #4
    supercreative
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭supercreative


    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?


  • #5
    SwD
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭SwD


    EmmaO94 wrote: »
    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.


  • #6
    LawGirl3434
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭LawGirl3434


    ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »
    holliek wrote: »
    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


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    LawGirl3434
    Registered Users Posts: 239 ✭✭LawGirl3434


    LawGirl3434 wrote: »
    ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »
    holliek wrote: »
    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


  • #8
    EmmaO94
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭EmmaO94


    SwD wrote: »
    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


  • #9
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    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.


  • #10
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    iamanengine wrote: »
    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)


  • #11
    niamh1612
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭niamh1612


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Fe1hayes
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Fe1hayes


    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?


  • #13
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    niamh1612 wrote: »
    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.


  • #14
    niamh1612
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭niamh1612


    Daly29 wrote: »
    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!!


  • #15
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    niamh1612 wrote: »
    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.


  • #16
    SwD
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭SwD


    Daly29 wrote: »
    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.

    My main focus was mistake on the basis he thought it was a petition.

    I think there could be two plausible answers here depending on the approach.


  • #17
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    SwD wrote: »
    My main focus was mistake on the basis he thought it was a petition.

    I think there could be two plausible answers here depending on the approach.

    The most appropriate action/defence was non est factum but I have seen him in the reports mentioning other angles so he will award marks there. I stuck in he was misrepresented as well.


  • #18
    EmmaO94
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭EmmaO94


    Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow.

    Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?


  • #19
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    EmmaO94 wrote: »
    Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow.

    Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?

    My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

    Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?


  • #20
    SwD
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭SwD


    Daly29 wrote: »
    My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

    Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?

    Highly doubt it, it’s a serious source of finance for the Law Society.


  • #21
    Breacnua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭Breacnua


    Daly29 wrote: »
    My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

    Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?

    Maybe they are, I don’t know. Someone mentioned it on here few weeks ago. The only way it’s going is because they must be getting hammered for it and have to make changes. It’s going to be a long 6 weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    EmmaO94
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭EmmaO94


    Breacnua wrote: »
    Maybe they are, I don’t know. Someone mentioned it on here few weeks ago. The only way it’s going is because they must be getting hammered for it and have to make changes. It’s going to be a long 6 weeks.

    Thanks Daly29. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger right...!

    It would be incredible if the magic 3 was done away with, but yes with amount of money the Law Soc makes from it, it's hard to see how they'd give it up.


  • #23
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    What date do results come out?

    Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!


  • #24
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    iamanengine wrote: »
    What date do results come out?

    Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!

    Around November 30th, there are therabouts. I dread opening that. 3 very marginal, 1 fail so far. If I can turn tomorrow to 4 marginals I'll be very happy. So many hours done. A rake of fails would be hard to swallow after all this.


  • #25
    Breacnua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭Breacnua


    Daly29 wrote: »
    Around November 30th, there are therabouts. I dread opening that. 3 very marginal, 1 fail so far. If I can turn tomorrow to 4 marginals I'll be very happy. So many hours done. A rake of fails would be hard to swallow after all this.


    I’m reading the Peart report ... after contract today, must be mad. I don’t see anything about changing fe1s, plenty proposals tho to come into effect from 2020 if rolled out

    Proposal 5: It’s been strongly proposed that full time legal executives over 5 years don’t have to do FE1S from next year.( Unless I’m stupid and read it wrong, contract took it out of my today )


  • #26
    nmurphy1441
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    How does the contract examiner divide marks for each question generally? Like with question 1 today.... with the clause incorporated into the contract as the first part and whether it is effective to protect Joe as the second part!? 10 marks for each?


  • #27
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    Kinda annoyed how a few of my papers went so going to just do everything I can to get one I can come away with feeling good about. Running on empty now. Going to go with the below and surely I can't fail. Dont really like some of my notes but anyway. Plan is to really really condence my notes to easy to rote learn, very shorthand. Do that for about 4 hours, bed and sleep till about 1AM - up, learn the very condenced notes for like 7 hours. Pass and celebrate. Hope I'm not taking on too many topics as I dont have much of a grasp of EU at present at all. Hope this plan is bullet proof.

    Institutions (Essay)
    Gen Principles (Essay)
    Direct Effect/Member State Liability (problem)
    Judicial review (Essay)
    Free Movement of Goods (problem)
    Citizenship
    Equality
    Competiton Law (problem)


  • #28
    JohnsKite
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭JohnsKite


    what do ye fine people think was the least popular question on today's contract paper?


  • #29
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    JohnsKite wrote: »
    what do ye fine people think was the least popular question on today's contract paper?

    Privity I'd assume?


  • #30
    holliek
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭holliek


    Am I right in thinking that in Kingdom of Belgium v Ryanair, Ryanair won the case and it wasn't illegal state aid?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    20082014
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭20082014


    EU

    Does anyone know the 3 principles form the innuit case from Judicial Review topic - all I have for this case is that it clarified what a regulatory act is as there was a lot of confusion post Lisbon?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement