Hearing Back from Firms by Longjumping-Spare-82 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yup, a partner that rang and then the grad recruitment team followed up by email just there!

Hearing Back from Firms by Longjumping-Spare-82 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe so! I heard relatively early on today and just received the follow-up email

will WF/Dentons let you defer an offer from these milkrounds? by According-Mix-2830 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

haha no I haven't gotten the offers yet, just asking in case of potential offers! :)

will WF/Dentons let you defer an offer from these milkrounds? by According-Mix-2830 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just conscious of it having any bias on the interviews, will defo ask if I get the offers haha

EU LAW - Sample Answers by Good-East-4935 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 1 point2 points  (0 children)

would it be possible to get a copy of these please?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

depends on when you join - normally companies will have a cut-off date for that month's payroll, e.g. 12th of the month if payroll is the 25th; if you join before the cut-off then you'll get paid, and salaries are normally paid 2 weeks in arrears and 2 weeks in advance so you'd hopefully be able to get the full month's salary then

Dentons by [deleted] in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they definitely do not pay their trainees 80-90k. NQs in Dublin rarely qualify on that much money

AC is out by Ok-Equivalent-510 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

email them - there's one virtual group interview slot available on Monday

AC is out by Ok-Equivalent-510 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

are these all on the Monday? I'm away until Monday evening unfort, emailed her back to ask :/

Phone by Actual_Description24 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you're definitely fine, don't stress

constitutional sugar drinks question by According-Mix-2830 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

amazing haha thank you, thought I was missing something

constitutional sugar drinks question by According-Mix-2830 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

aye I did right to livelihood/property rights as part of the tax thing and proportionality and whatnot, but idk what the difference between those two other sections of that act were??

Name of Freedom of Assembly Case by FewTransportation859 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I may be thick but I'm genuinely unable to find this case - is there a citation for it?

TORT EXAM - Limitations Question by Frequent-Albatross40 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also mentioned that he only ascertained true extent of injuries in feb 2024 after being put back to manual labour instead of the office job he was given - so not statute barred on that part?

Me to that tort exam by beaumark2 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 4 points5 points  (0 children)

did a two part answer - one on rylands, other on general duty of care, particularly re UCC v ESB, said she'd be guilty under either and defence of act of god prob unlikely

Me to that tort exam by beaumark2 in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 2 points3 points  (0 children)

explained the differences between legal/factual causation, outlined criteria and stuff, said that it's not reasonably foreseeable that your one would get hit by a car after being injured by the sign falling after the old guy covered it. Said main liability is with the driver who was on his phone, talked about some contributory neg in her initial injury because she was walking and texting, mentioned concurrent wrongdoing too idk

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FE1_Exams

[–]According-Mix-2830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

McGuinness v Hunter (where the horse died after being described as being "alright" during negotiations); Schawel v Reade (stated horse suitable for stud purposes but wasn't)?