FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

pansoul

JCJCJC wrote: »

Always on for craic. I was so jaded last night I only had two pints.

JC

Ya I went straight out, better option I think, no time to get tired. Lasted pretty well too given lack of 'training' for a month or so. Incredible feeling today. Nearly makes all the work worth it.

JCJCJC

law86 wrote: »

You could argue that the dog murdered her, therefore could not benefit. Can't believe I didn't think of that in the exam.

Very true. The cats are shagged too - the law doesn't know cats. There is provision for dogs homes under the Control Of Dogs Acts but there's no Control Of Cats Act. Mad Green Johnnie could declare cats to be dogs for the purposes of the Act which wouldn't be the quarest thing he'd have ever done by a long shot and they'd then have a statutory right of residence in the dogs home, but that would of course only be a license per the new land law act. You have to be careful what you say about cat houses nowadays or you could be had up for defamation

So the State gets the 500k which will service our debt for about five milliseconds.

brumbram6

question n 8 in equity- wrote about DMC and Strongv Bird in the exam. came home, read the question again and realised it was about three formalities. hope i'll get some points for DMC, or would yout think that it was about three formalities only...

CFOLEY85

irkalein wrote: »

question n 8 in equity- wrote about DMC and Strongv Bird in the exam. came home, read the question again and realised it was about three formalities. hope i'll get some points for DMC, or would yout think that it was about three formalities only...

Was it not about complete constitution of a gift?????

brumbram6

brian__foley wrote: »

Yes...massively so. Its nothing to do with policy. To pass you'd need 250/500 and on three questions thats 83 each and, no disrepect intended, but you're not about to get that.

was wondering what happens if you answer 6 or even 7 questions in the exam - will those be marked or anything above 5 goes unnoticed??

brumbram6

QUOTE=CFOLEY85;68400259]Was it not about complete constitution of a gift?????[/QUOTE]
i am not really sure any more, what did you write about??

read only the statement in exam and the q was what is required from a settlor to ensure that a trust is completely constituted?

CFOLEY85

irkalein wrote: »

QUOTE=CFOLEY85;68400259]Was it not about complete constitution of a gift?????

i am not really sure any more, what did you write about??[[/QUOTE]


I didnt do it cos I thought it was complete const, and I was stuck for a 5th q so just done quistclose in the two parter and bull sh*tted mandatory injunctions!!

I wouldnt mind but I had learnt the 3 certainities!!! did you do the q on specfic performance?

purpleglory

having read this thread I think i have taken up that question wrong also. Answered on how it is easier for beneficiaries to enforce incompletely constituted trusts in recent years. But I think now that the question is to do with the three certainties which I knew too:mad: not happy because if thats a zero mark answer then doubtful to pass!

brumbram6

purpleglory wrote: »

having read this thread I think i have taken up that question wrong also. Answered on how it is easier for beneficiaries to enforce incompletely constituted trusts in recent years. But I think now that the question is to do with the three certainties which I knew too:mad: not happy because if thats a zero mark answer then doubtful to pass!

yeah, thats what annoys me the most- i kept reading the statement over and over again and decided to write about dmc, although i knew three formalities pretty good... if only i would have read the question instead of the statement...

brumbram6

and i also did the first question but thought it was kinda short... how did you find it.

CFOLEY85

purpleglory wrote: »

having read this thread I think i have taken up that question wrong also. Answered on how it is easier for beneficiaries to enforce incompletely constituted trusts in recent years. But I think now that the question is to do with the three certainties which I knew too:mad: not happy because if thats a zero mark answer then doubtful to pass!

In my opinion I think it was on incompleted const trusts, I dont think the equity examiner is the type to put in tricks q and it was mentioned a few times about const trusts.... Grrr these exams can really confuse ya!!!!

Can anyone tell me what way they approached the specfic performance q please?

brumbram6

i wrote mainly all i knew about 4 cases of specific performance and put down all 7 defences and said that he probably won't be able to rescind the contract, as recession does not amount to hardship/frustration? what was your conclusion?

Sarahaw

If you read the bit at the end of that question, it specifically referred to INCOMPLETELY CONSTITUTED TRUSTS so i'd imagine that's what it was on.

purpleglory

yeah thats the thing. The fact that they specifically mentioned constitution of trusts in the question. Like one could argue that the case law dealing with this area demonstrates what one must do to have a completely constituted trust. That was my angle on it anyways by saying that you either have to have a valid transfer or a declaration of trust. Then dived into the substance of the question by saying that the Courts have inferred declarations of trust from failed transfers etc or for example even if one fails to meet the specifics then the Courts have relaxed in recent years and taken a more purposive viewpoint.

I am torn though having read the thread whether this is the correct angle though. Ironic thing is that I thought originally that it was my best question :eek:

brumbram6

it seems that the q was very vague or had many angles, such as what a fully constituted trust with 3 formalities is, what strongv bird rule says or maybe even dmc? mayb someone could give a definite answer what the answer to this q had to contain....

Ruby83

irkalein wrote: »

it seems that the q was very vague or had many angles, such as what a fully constituted trust with 3 formalities is, what strongv bird rule says or maybe even dmc? mayb someone could give a definite answer what the answer to this q had to contain....

That question was on constitution of trusts, ie the settlor had to transfer the gift/item or else could declare himself the trustee, i.e. Re Rose, Re Fry, Milroy v Lord, Re Wilson, Choitram etc. I can't see how it could have been anything else.

Jev/N

Well I'm glad we cleared that up :pac:

brumbram6

thanks for your replies guys, looks like i have left this topic or this section out by concentrating on DMC and Strong v Bird... :mad:

JCJCJC

Well, with the exams over last week and the brain now virus-busted, defragmented, reformatted and re-booted, I'm going to try to make an early soft-start to my campaign for the next lot early next year, doing some reading and summarising.
Could anyone please share some basic tactics on equity, constitutional, criminal and company - what I really would like is an outline of which topics are NEVER asked, and which are ALWAYS asked?

All views welcome and appreciated but don't say 'study the whole course' I could work that out for myself ;-)

JC

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, with the exams over last week and the brain now virus-busted, defragmented, reformatted and re-booted, I'm going to try to make an early soft-start to my campaign for the next lot early next year, doing some reading and summarising.
Could anyone please share some basic tactics on equity, constitutional, criminal and company - what I really would like is an outline of which topics are NEVER asked, and which are ALWAYS asked?

All views welcome and appreciated but don't say 'study the whole course' I could work that out for myself ;-)

JC

In fairness for Criminal the course is tiny, You could probably leave out Offenses against the state. But when you get down to look at criminal you will notice how tiny the course is. For the sake of having most questions open to you i would advise doing everything. Its totally worth it where as its not for other courses.

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, with the exams over last week and the brain now virus-busted, defragmented, reformatted and re-booted, I'm going to try to make an early soft-start to my campaign for the next lot early next year, doing some reading and summarising.
Could anyone please share some basic tactics on equity, constitutional, criminal and company - what I really would like is an outline of which topics are NEVER asked, and which are ALWAYS asked?

All views welcome and appreciated but don't say 'study the whole course' I could work that out for myself ;-)

JC

Check you Gmail JC.

NoQuarter

Hogzy wrote: »

In fairness for Criminal the course is tiny, You could probably leave out Offenses against the state. But when you get down to look at criminal you will notice how tiny the course is. For the sake of having most questions open to you i would advise doing everything. Its totally worth it where as its not for other courses.

Is defences not huge itself?

Hogzy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Is defences not huge itself?

Yes, Its about one quarter of the course if not more and guaranteed to come up in at least 2 questions.

NoQuarter

Hogzy wrote: »

Yes, Its about one quarter of the course if not more and guaranteed to come up in at least 2 questions.

so is it like study 10 smallish mini topics to get 2 questions?

Hogzy

NoQuarter wrote: »

so is it like study 10 smallish mini topics to get 2 questions?

Insanity, automatism, provocation, mistake, Duress and Self Defense come up the most but there are other small defenses that are like half a page in the manuals that are worth a 10min look for the sake of it. TBH they could all be individual chapters. They are really straight forward though.

Just to be clear its very VERY common for the defenses to be mixed into the problem questions. Just look at the past papers

brian__foley

It begins again.

I have a small favour to request and, in particular from people who haven't been to GCD. If you had the time (and had something to say or an idea) could you possibly PM me regarding what you'd like to see an fe1 course doing. Whether its different timetables, the use of helper monkeys or sexier lecturers, it would be good to know going forward for changes / market responses etc. Please, please don't think I'm inviting posts or discussion on this point at all - please just PM if there is anything you think you think you'd like provided that you can't currently get on the market.

Regards

Brian
GCD

Sarahaw

If anyone has an e-copy of the Constitutional Exam from Sept 10 I'd really appreciate it if you could PM it to me. Thanks in advance!!

dynamokev

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, with the exams over last week and the brain now virus-busted, defragmented, reformatted and re-booted, I'm going to try to make an early soft-start to my campaign for the next lot early next year, doing some reading and summarising.
Could anyone please share some basic tactics on equity, constitutional, criminal and company - what I really would like is an outline of which topics are NEVER asked, and which are ALWAYS asked?

All views welcome and appreciated but don't say 'study the whole course' I could work that out for myself ;-)

JC

Of the ones you've mentioned I have done Equity, Criminal and Company.

The most predictable of any of the FE1 exams is Equity. She rarely repeats topics from one exam to the next, so the topics on the sitting just gone are highly unlikely to come up. But remember that only means the subsection is unlikely to come up, eg there will almost certainly be a question on charitable trusts just not on the charitable trusts for the relief of poverty aspect of it, likewise a question will almost certainly come up on resulting trusts, but its highly unlikely there will be anything on Quistclose trusts. My advice and it paid off for me (well fingers crossed anyway) is to know Trusts inside out and then equity just know the main areas like injunctions, estoppel and undue influence (specific performance is highly unlikely next time around.) As the break down in questions is usually 3.5: 4.5 questions equity:trusts.

Company ... em that's tough enough to predict. Membership & Shareholders and Shares (ie the theory and definitions) I'd leave out. With his exam though, there are bankers like s205 but he catches you out by asking either a very complex essay question on it or mixing it with a more obscure area like s25 from another section of the course. So really outside the 2 chapters I mentioned everything else should be known.

As for criminal, if there is any subject where you can't cut corners it's criminal. One of the problem questions I did in the exams just gone was a mix of about 5 topics. I did however leave out one chapter. I did everything bar the Practice, Procedure, Detention and Bail topic. I knew there would be one question on it but was prepared to forfeit that as long as I knew the other areas well enough.

See the thing about the exams as you probably know yourself is when you open the paper and see that you can maybe answer 7 questions, some of the questions (particularly the essays) are centered on a very obscure area of the law, and because you can answer 7 questions does not mean you can answer 7 well and usually there are 2 of them that you wouldn't be all that confident about getting a passing grade on. So the more knowledge of the course you have, the better set you are. If you are starting now I'm sure you'll be fine, I wish I had the motivation to do the same but considering its only 9 days since I finished I'm going to continue enjoying living life outside the Fe1 fishbowl for a month or so longer!

Orla FitzP

fair play JCJC iv only begun to think about starting again...alot hangs in the balance of that i actually got them......worried!

legalstuff

How important are up to date law manuals? Would a manuals from 2008 from the likes of Independant or Griffith be out of date or has the common law not moved that quickly? Obviously for the likes of EU with the Lisbon Treaty coming in I know you need an up to date manual, but what about the likes of criminal, tort, contract etc? Would using a manual from 2008 be dodgy or risky at all?