FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

0435414@live.ie

Dont waste time on maxims...sure have an idea of them,but in fairness they are anachronisms in contemporary law...and are of little to no use besides illustrating your peripheral knowledge and sometimes they come up as short/half questions. Very broad and pricipled but these exams require specificity and maxims would not serve you well in terms of using the remaining time to the best effect. Concentrate on the mainstays of the subject to guarentee (or close to it) yourself a better chance of reward for time invested in studying.

Miss_F

trixabelle86 wrote: »

Heya! You can get it on Amazon (found it for less than €100 there) or in Easons but think its almost €130 for the student version there

I ordered it on Amazon and it arrived in about a week! Hope that helps

Thanks for that.

trixabelle86

Miss_F wrote: »

Thanks for that.

no bothers!

frustratedTC

Just doing terms in contract specifically the rules of construction, do u think id need to outline those guidelines laid down by Hoffman in Investors Corporation Scheme v. West Bromwhich Building Society, or do u think its sufficient to just say that there are 2 approaches?

Hope study is going well, equity is destroying me, soo hard to study it

brehayes

anyone in Cork want to start a study group for Company for the next four weeks?

B

bob_lob_law

Working off an old manual so not fully sure how this impacts on charitable trusts, in particular the public benefit test for Charitable trusts to family - can anyone shed any light on it?

The public benefit test is a requirement for all trusts now under the new legislation s3(2), previously it was not required for trusts relieving poverty which meant it was able to bypass the test for charitable trusts to family, although apparently it was arguable that a trust to relieve poverty in one's own family does confer a public benefit to some extent. Confusing stuff to say the least.

The legislation provides:


(7) In determining whether a gift is of public benefit or not,
account shall be taken of—

(a) any limitation imposed by the donor of the gift on the class
of persons who may benefit from the gift and whether
or not such limitation is justified and reasonable, having
regard to the nature of the purpose of the gift, and

(b) the amount of any charge payable for any service provided
in furtherance of the purpose for which the gift is given
and whether it is likely to limit the number of persons or
classes of person who will benefit from the gift.

(8) A limitation referred to in subsection (7) shall not be justified
and reasonable if all of the intended beneficiaries of the gift or a
significant number of them have a personal connection with the
donor of the gift.

So 8 is the personal nexus test? I have the one day revision course to do so I might just move on and hope to clear it up at that. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

KeepTheFaith

Would anyone have the October 2010 examiners report for Property Law that they'd be willing to pass on, I can trade for the Constitutional one. Thanks.

imtiptop

Hey, really stuck with Mortgages at the moment - does anyone know what effect the new property act has had on mortgages? Be grateful for any help

faubo

Dylan123 wrote: »

Any idea?

Art 36 TFEU purports to give an exception to the restriction of the (FMOG) for various reasons such as:
-Treasure possessing artistic, historical or archaeological value.

-Surely its arguable that contradicts the ratio in the Commission v Italy - which imposed a tax levy on fine art leaving the country. I would have thought fine art could be considered alongside those exceptions?

Or am i missing the point?

The fe1 fever is kicking in

Dunno if someone already answered this, but Art 36 only applies to Art 34 and quantitative restrictions. The ECJ explicitly discounted Italy's attempt to argue Art 36. The point being that the prohibition on customs duties was so fundamental to the idea of the single European market that no exceptions could be allowed (bar of course the exceptions that do exist - services/inspections due to mandatory obligations!).

Torment

Anybody have any tips for company exam - can anything be left out ? Sylabus is huge !!!!

fe1sagain

Hey guys hope study is going well.

Just wondering what topics people are covering for EU?

Direct Effect/Supremecy
Member State Liability
Judicial Review Art 263
Preliminary References Art 267
Infringement Proceedings
FMOG
Freedom of Services/Est/Workers
Citizenship
Competition Law Art 101/102

Leaving out Institutions, General Principles (Fundamental Rights, Subsidarity etc), Equality, State Aid and Participation, Brussels Reg.

Any suggestions of what to leave out or do instead? The course is the biggest I have studied

Hogzy

fe1sagain wrote: »

Hey guys hope study is going well.

Just wondering what topics people are covering for EU?

Direct Effect/Supremecy
Member State Liability
Judicial Review Art 263
Preliminary Proceedings Art 260
Infringement Proceedings
FMOG
Freedom of Services/Est/Workers
Citizenship
Competition Law Art 101/102

Leaving out Institutions, General Principles (Fundamental Rights, Subsidarity etc), Equality, State Aid and Participation, Brussels Reg.

Any suggestions of what to leave out or do instead? The course is the biggest I have studied

I would do institutions. Probably one of the easiest chapters to learn and you would be kicking yourself if a "write all you know about" question came up. And they do sometimes in regards this chapter

fe1sagain

Hogzy wrote: »

I would do institutions. Probably one of the easiest chapters to learn and you would be kicking yourself if a "write all you know about" question came up. And they do sometimes in regards this chapter

Thanks, I was avoiding it because I heard the questions asked require further study than whats in the manual as the qs have become more difficult and niche.

Hogzy

fe1sagain wrote: »

Thanks, I was avoiding it because I heard the questions asked require further study than whats in the manual as the qs have become more difficult and niche.

If you have the latest manual with Lisbon included then whats in the manual is enough for 50%.

CFOLEY85

imtiptop wrote: »

Hey, really stuck with Mortgages at the moment - does anyone know what effect the new property act has had on mortgages? Be grateful for any help

Im considering leaving Mortgages out, am I crazy? Just seems so big and not very interesting

bob_lob_law

Re automatic resulting trusts the October 2009 report refers to two cases, Tierney v Gough and Feeny v McManus - can't seem to locate them myself, does anyone have the full citations/case names?

JCJCJC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Re automatic resulting trusts the October 2009 report refers to two cases, Tierney v Gough and Feeny v McManus - can't seem to locate them myself, does anyone have the full citations/case names?

Never heard of either case, the names would suggest they are more than likely Irish cases but nothing is showing up on bailii.org, westlaw or courts.ie, or in Delaney's book - very odd. Check out the citations and revert?

JC

rollout

Feeney v. McManus [1937] 1 IR 23

JCJCJC

rollout wrote: »

Feeney v. McManus [1937] 1 IR 23

Maybe I see now what brought that on. In 2008 there was an unreported case Greenband Investments v Matthew Bruton, Dennis Walsh and Patrick Holohan 2008 3677 P which contained the following paragraphs:

(begin snip)

6.3 However, it does not seem to me that those provisions change the essential legal character of the ICC. It remains a members club. It is true to say that, in the ordinary way, as was argued by counsel for Greenband, a members club is governed by its rules which amount to a contract between the members which contract can, in turn, be altered in whatever way the rules provide. That common feature of a typical members club is not, in one sense, to be found in the case of the ICC where the arrangements between the members are specified in a schedule to an Act of the Oireachtas and can only be altered by the agreement of a statutory body in the shape of Bord na gCon. However, it does not seem to me to be appropriate to characterise the ICC as a “creature of statue”. It is not set up by the 1958 Act. It is not continued in existence by that Act. Rather the 1958 Act confers powers on the ICC and regulates the terms of its constitution and amendments of that constitution. The 1958 Act does not, in my view, alter the fundamental fact that the ICC has no corporate existence conferred on it, and thus can only exist as a members club albeit a unusual one whose constitution is determined and regulated by statute. It follows that the property of the club is owned by its members. See Feeney and Shannon v. McManus [1937] I.R. 23 .

6.4 On that basis the ICC argues, placing reliance on a decision of the Court of Session in Murray & Ors v. Johnson R 981 , that the property of a members club can only be alienated by an agreement of all of the members of the club in question, in the absence of a specific power in the constitution of the club concerned, empowering some person or body within the club to exercise that power. That case involved an attempted sale by a majority of the members of a sporting club of a Silver Cup presented to the Curling Clubs of Dumfriesshire. A minority successfully opposed the sale of the cup in question on the basis that the proper legal characterisation of the ownership of property of a members club was that each member had a share in the property and that, therefore, a majority had not a natural right to sell the minority's share. The Court of Session agreed.

(end of snip)

blathblath

may54321 wrote: »

Hi, I'm looking for the following manuals:
- company
- Tort
- Consitution
-Equity

As recent as possible.

PM if you want to sell yours and include price.
0877808397

Thanks

I have most of these manuals. PM if you are still looking cheers!

bob_lob_law

JCJCJC wrote: »

Maybe I see now what brought that on. In 2008 there was an unreported case Greenband Investments v Matthew Bruton, Dennis Walsh and Patrick Holohan 2008 3677 P which contained the following paragraphs:

(begin snip)

6.3 However, it does not seem to me that those provisions change the essential legal character of the ICC. It remains a members club. It is true to say that, in the ordinary way, as was argued by counsel for Greenband, a members club is governed by its rules which amount to a contract between the members which contract can, in turn, be altered in whatever way the rules provide. That common feature of a typical members club is not, in one sense, to be found in the case of the ICC where the arrangements between the members are specified in a schedule to an Act of the Oireachtas and can only be altered by the agreement of a statutory body in the shape of Bord na gCon. However, it does not seem to me to be appropriate to characterise the ICC as a “creature of statue”. It is not set up by the 1958 Act. It is not continued in existence by that Act. Rather the 1958 Act confers powers on the ICC and regulates the terms of its constitution and amendments of that constitution. The 1958 Act does not, in my view, alter the fundamental fact that the ICC has no corporate existence conferred on it, and thus can only exist as a members club albeit a unusual one whose constitution is determined and regulated by statute. It follows that the property of the club is owned by its members. See Feeney and Shannon v. McManus [1937] I.R. 23 .

6.4 On that basis the ICC argues, placing reliance on a decision of the Court of Session in Murray & Ors v. Johnson R 981 , that the property of a members club can only be alienated by an agreement of all of the members of the club in question, in the absence of a specific power in the constitution of the club concerned, empowering some person or body within the club to exercise that power. That case involved an attempted sale by a majority of the members of a sporting club of a Silver Cup presented to the Curling Clubs of Dumfriesshire. A minority successfully opposed the sale of the cup in question on the basis that the proper legal characterisation of the ownership of property of a members club was that each member had a share in the property and that, therefore, a majority had not a natural right to sell the minority's share. The Court of Session agreed.

(end of snip)

Good work JC, thanks, it would have helped if she spelt the parties correctly in the report!

Mucria

Hi, pls pm if you got Tort, Criminal, Constitutional manuals and papers to sell...will go for it in October, so no rush. Wish you well on the day for those passing the FE1 in March

glengirlie

Anyone sitting constitutional-on the topic of freedom of expression at the moment, do we think this could come up what with the defamation act being recent enough in 2009 and any other tips apart from the usual of the president, the election procedures and the fact that SOP is very popular?

Pls help, time is flying by-and not in a nice way :mad:

JCJCJC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Good work JC, thanks, it would have helped if she spelt the parties correctly in the report!

I get very, very suspicious when these wacky cases come up in the FE1s. If you were a law lecturer in any Irish law school, and you wanted to give your own pupils an edge in the FE1s, in which you happen to be an external examiner, by strange coincidence. Could you not dwell heavily in your classes and tutorials on a few wacky cases that have never been digitised, and that aren't mentioned even in a footnote in any authoritative textbook? Those two cases you mention are totally unavailable to anyone outside a traditional law library with court reports on paper, and are not likely to be encountered in the normal run of things by even the most diligent students. Yet, for those who do insert them in their answers, big marks accrue. To me, it's suspicious. Why deviate from the standard authorities in any point of law? Something similar imho happened last year in Contract Law - a case called Sowell v Potter from 1939 came up - nobody's textbook has it. It seems '39 was a vintage year for law, doesn't it.

wez99950

So looking for a bit of advice from past exam takers or indeed any of those who are doing the same subjects as me. I'm working full time at the moment and as much as i would love to take time off for these exams, it's just not possible. I was originally thinking of doing four but with time constraints, i think it would be best to just focus on three rather than spreading myself too thinly over four (or is that a bad idea). The three subjects i'm going to do are Criminal, Equity and Contract.
For Criminal I am going to do: Introd to Criminal Law, Complicity, Inchoate Offences, Offences against the person & Property, and defences
For Equity I am going to do: Injunctions, specific perf, recission, 3 certainties of express trusts, formal requirements, resulting (implied) trusts, secret trusts, cy-pres, charitable, complete constitution and remedies.
For Contract I am going to do: Offer & Acceptance, Consideration, Estoppel, Intent to Create Legal Relations, Privity of Contracts, Contractual terms, Misrep and Mistake.

Anybody doing these topics/have done - do you think i would be covered doing them? i know no-one can give me a definite answer, i just want to try and do as much as is needed to be relatively covered. Oh the joys of being penniless and having to work. Sure i've paid for the exams so might as well give them a shot!

Thanks - and apologies for the long winded message!

dynamokev

I think what you have outlined is a kamikaze attempt. Hate to be the bringer of bad news but when you are only doing 3 subjects, you are really walking the tight rope (presuming these are your first 3) and there is absolutely no margin for error.

There is simply no way you could pass a criminal law exam only doing the topics you have chosen. There is so much mixture of topics going on in that subject. For example, in the October exam, I did a problem question that had issues of manslaughter, causation, burglary, false imprisonment, complicity and common design going on in it. That was just one question.

To leave out sexual offences, mens rea, actus reas, murder and manslaughter is just crazy.

As regards Contract there is always at least two if not three and occasionally four issues going on in a problem question. By only doing 8 chapters in the contract course, it is impossible to expect to pass.

For equity there may be a bit more margin for leaving out topics but again I'm not sure you will have convered yourself with what you have there.

I know this is not the answer you are looking for but better to tell you now while there is still time, as opposed to when it's too late. Criminal and contract are tiny courses, there is time enough to do the whole course (even if working full time) and then with equity make sure to hit all the regular topics with enough of the secondary topics to get you over the line.

Best of luck with it.

wez99950 wrote: »

So looking for a bit of advice from past exam takers or indeed any of those who are doing the same subjects as me. I'm working full time at the moment and as much as i would love to take time off for these exams, it's just not possible. I was originally thinking of doing four but with time constraints, i think it would be best to just focus on three rather than spreading myself too thinly over four (or is that a bad idea). The three subjects i'm going to do are Criminal, Equity and Contract.
For Criminal I am going to do: Introd to Criminal Law, Complicity, Inchoate Offences, Offences against the person & Property, and defences
For Equity I am going to do: Injunctions, specific perf, recission, 3 certainties of express trusts, formal requirements, resulting (implied) trusts, secret trusts, cy-pres, charitable, complete constitution and remedies.
For Contract I am going to do: Offer & Acceptance, Consideration, Estoppel, Intent to Create Legal Relations, Privity of Contracts, Contractual terms, Misrep and Mistake.

Anybody doing these topics/have done - do you think i would be covered doing them? i know no-one can give me a definite answer, i just want to try and do as much as is needed to be relatively covered. Oh the joys of being penniless and having to work. Sure i've paid for the exams so might as well give them a shot!

Thanks - and apologies for the long winded message!

Hogzy

Anyone have any good articles for the President or Attorney General? I have access to Westlaw, HeinOnline, LexisNexis etc so just give me a reference or a link and i can go from there thanks.

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

I get very, very suspicious when these wacky cases come up in the FE1s. If you were a law lecturer in any Irish law school, and you wanted to give your own pupils an edge in the FE1s, in which you happen to be an external examiner, by strange coincidence. Could you not dwell heavily in your classes and tutorials on a few wacky cases that have never been digitised, and that aren't mentioned even in a footnote in any authoritative textbook? Those two cases you mention are totally unavailable to anyone outside a traditional law library with court reports on paper, and are not likely to be encountered in the normal run of things by even the most diligent students. Yet, for those who do insert them in their answers, big marks accrue. To me, it's suspicious. Why deviate from the standard authorities in any point of law? Something similar imho happened last year in Contract Law - a case called Sowell v Potter from 1939 came up - nobody's textbook has it. It seems '39 was a vintage year for law, doesn't it.

It's not that the case "came up". The paper is entirely do-able without knowing the precise case upon which facts are based. Indeed, that's really a handicap if you want to stick to the right answer which you'd give in real life - i.e. "well, this precise issue was dealt with in A v B and A won...so, there you have it".

For contract, in particular, very, very, very high marks are there for the asking if you simply know a good amount about how the law applies with enough case-law to illustrate, apply and reason by analogy. Don't get caught up with having to know particular (and random) cases that are a bit off the beaten track.

T.Watson

Would anyone have any recommendations on a good book/nutshells for EU law post Lisbon? All my college stuff is out of date and I'm have some trouble getting to grips with this subject.

Also, with all the renumbering of Articles and what not, how should you approach discussing issues in cases. Are you penalised for referring to the old articles in ECJ cases (and should you even call it the ECJ in the exam even if that's what it was called when they gave the judgment?) or should you just refer the the renumbered article?

Are there any topics that can be safely left out for EU?

All the name changing of institutions, treaties, articles and what not has my head seriously confused! Sorry for all the rambling questions! Thanks all

wez99950

Thank you!

My apologies - i just typed the chapter titles in my griffith manual - the topics you mentioned are covered in those! I am doing every except offences against admin of justice (perjury,contempt), offences against the state (treason,unlawful organisation, government) and public order offences (intoxication,affray, violent disorder, riot, breach of peace etc.) Going to cover everything else. I'm hoping that will cover everything....hhmm....

You're right I'm going to try and do some more in relation to contract. I don't think I can manage more topics with equity. I'm hoping that I might be able to manage to a few on tort (4th subject) so at least i'll have something to write on - any topic recommendations!?

Again, thanks for the reply.

dynamokev wrote: »

I think what you have outlined is a kamikaze attempt. Hate to be the bringer of bad news but when you are only doing 3 subjects, you are really walking the tight rope (presuming these are your first 3) and there is absolutely no margin for error.

There is simply no way you could pass a criminal law exam only doing the topics you have chosen. There is so much mixture of topics going on in that subject. For example, in the October exam, I did a problem question that had issues of manslaughter, causation, burglary, false imprisonment, complicity and common design going on in it. That was just one question.

To leave out sexual offences, mens rea, actus reas, murder and manslaughter is just crazy.

As regards Contract there is always at least two if not three and occasionally four issues going on in a problem question. By only doing 8 chapters in the contract course, it is impossible to expect to pass.

For equity there may be a bit more margin for leaving out topics but again I'm not sure you will have convered yourself with what you have there.

I know this is not the answer you are looking for but better to tell you now while there is still time, as opposed to when it's too late. Criminal and contract are tiny courses, there is time enough to do the whole course (even if working full time) and then with equity make sure to hit all the regular topics with enough of the secondary topics to get you over the line.

Best of luck with it.