FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

steph86

T.Watson wrote: »

Kinda suprised at how nice the EU paper was to be honest. I defo f**ked up the problem question I did but there was a couple of grand questions on there. Institutions one was ridiculously long (don't see why it was in 3 parts and had 4 parts for part 1 of it - how much is he expecting you to write!).

Property tomorrow and well I've sacrificed my time on EU so now I'm having a bit of a hail mary shot at it. Dum Dum Dummmmmmmmm

Yeh the question on the institutions was really long. fingers and toes cross i done enough. Now for property. roll on friday.

zelda88

Could anyone out there please tell me what the answer was to the second part of question 8 on EU today - problem question on State aid - explain the procedure to be followed to challenge the Commission decision before a Union Judicature? And who else could challenge the Commission decision on it being too lenient?

JCJCJC

happy_man2010 wrote: »

Thanks a million for that, it's a bugger alright but such is the nature of these exams! I have the memo printed off so hopefully it's of some help. I hope my memory serves me well from last time for this!

Are you sitting property tomorrow yourself? If so, what are you covering?

No, thank God - I passed it twice last year, only got two in March but got my three in Sept/October so I'm on the scorecard at last. I actually like property law, did a thesis on adverse possession etc, it seems to make sense to me. Unlike EU.

hession.law

OMG NTL ESB what an amazing exam! WINNING

Torment

Help needed !!!!!!

Any banker topics that come up every year or even some tips on whats likely.

Thanks a million.

law86

The only tip I have for contract is don't leave much out. She likes to get as much of the course onto the paper as possible, and mix topics within questions. A little of everything is the key, I think.

bob_lob_law

Guys I'm after making a major boo boo - I thought contract was tomorrow, not property! I haven't left the succession act in to be checked - does this mean I won't be able to use it??? Kicking myself here, idiot!

ally10

Torment wrote: »

Help needed !!!!!!

Any banker topics that come up every year or even some tips on whats likely.

Thanks a million.

The topics which seem to come up quite often are
offer, acceptance and consideration
Promissory estoppel
mistake
discharge of cantracts
void and illegal contracts
contractual terms


best to study as much as possible because 1 questions can have 3 topics in it.

ally10

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Guys I'm after making a major boo boo - I thought contract was tomorrow, not property! I haven't left the succession act in to be checked - does this mean I won't be able to use it??? Kicking myself here, idiot!

give it in straight away in the morning and they should give it back to u at about 10

law86

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Guys I'm after making a major boo boo - I thought contract was tomorrow, not property! I haven't left the succession act in to be checked - does this mean I won't be able to use it??? Kicking myself here, idiot!

You can leave it in tomorrow; you'll get it back around ten am.

T.Watson

Anyone happen to know the main changes that Civil Partnership Act brings about in relatio to the posts earlier? I'm so unbelievably screwed for property, I've nothing covered yet bar succession so if anyone even has a few bullet points of the changes in that act it'd be great? Is it just that it extends consent requirement...is that the nb thing?

Also what's the craic with documents referred to in a will outside a will (codicils?). Having nothing in my notes on it but it seems to have been an issue in some problem question? Thanks

Sala

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Guys I'm after making a major boo boo - I thought contract was tomorrow, not property! I haven't left the succession act in to be checked - does this mean I won't be able to use it??? Kicking myself here, idiot!

You will be able to check it in in the morning. When I did mine I checked in the companies acts and the constitution on morning of the exam. It should be put on your desk within the first hour. You'll be grand as you won't need it for all your questions so just be clever about what you order you do them

bob_lob_law

Great, thanks, now to get cracking on the property!

JCJCJC

Torment wrote: »

Help needed !!!!!!

Any banker topics that come up every year or even some tips on whats likely.

Thanks a million.

Damages - know the heads under which damages may be recovered in Contract and have a few cases for each, Prof Robert Clark published an article on it in recent years and it appeared last year as an essay.
Caselaw, caselaw, caselaw...know all the old standards around offer, acceptance, consideration, terms and warranties, variations, counter-offers etc, it's conceptually easy stuff and questions do come on it but you must know the cases.

rebel86

How long (in words) should a "write a note on" question for property be? I know this is probably impossible to answer because it depends on quality not quantity etc, I'm just wondering because the notes I have on a lot of the topics that come up in these questions are quite short but I may have to answer that question if I can't answer 5 of the others. Thanks.

bob_lob_law

Again, this is probably a bit of stupid one but...when witnessing a will, do the witnesses have to know that the document is a will, or is it sufficient that they attest the signature?

Dylan123

I assume they would need to know that it was a will otherwise it may frustrate attestation. However if a person forms the will in a state of lucidity he/she can execute it in a state of unsound mind if they know the nature of the property, chattels... will

T.Watson

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Again, this is probably a bit of stupid one but...when witnessing a will, do the witnesses have to know that the document is a will, or is it sufficient that they attest the signature?

Don't think they need to know it's a will they just need to see the act of signing.

Anyone know anything about codicils????

KeepTheFaith

The witness does not need to know that the testator is signing a will, they just need to witness the fact that the testator has signed the paper.

Eliste

Dylan123 wrote: »

Would you sign something you have not read and dont understand?

You're not signing that you know what's in the document. You signing that you saw the dude put his name on the page. Or that the dude told the other dude to sign the page for him. As a witness, you do not have to even know it's a will, just that you have seen the signing and that you attest to that.

Dal86

T.Watson wrote: »

Don't think they need to know it's a will they just need to see the act of signing.

Anyone know anything about codicils????

A codicil is a document that can be added to a will so as to alter the terms of a will. It takes precedence over what the clause was in the original as it is considered to have been made closer to death but it must be signed and attested in accordance with s77 and s78.

itsmol

T.Watson wrote: »

Anyone happen to know the main changes that Civil Partnership Act brings about in relatio to the posts earlier? I'm so unbelievably screwed for property, I've nothing covered yet bar succession so if anyone even has a few bullet points of the changes in that act it'd be great? Is it just that it extends consent requirement...is that the nb thing?

Also what's the craic with documents referred to in a will outside a will (codicils?). Having nothing in my notes on it but it seems to have been an issue in some problem question? Thanks

As far as I can see, v. briefly the most important section in Part 4-Shared Home Protection.
s. 28 Where a civil partner without the prior consent in writing of the other civil partner, purports to convey an interest in the shared home to persons other than civil partner the purported conveyance is void.
(3) Conveyance is not void if its maid to purchaser for full value etc

s.29 Where there is a civil partnership and partners whos consent is required under s.28 omits or refused consent the court may dispense with this consent.
(2) Court shall not dispense with this consent unless it considers it is unreasonable for civil partner to withhold consent taking into account
(a) Respective needs and resources of civil partners (b) if offered alternative accomodation the suitability of that accomodation etc

3 Corut shall dispense if (a) Civil Partner cannot be found after sufficient enquiries, (b) Court is of the opinion if would be reasonable to do so,

4 Court wil dispense with consent if civil partner is incapable of giving consent i.e unsound mind etc.

Hope that helps, it should be plenty, just say its great that it offers protection of civil partnerships. Also argue possible abuse re: contributions etc also argue the floodgate arguments to cover your ass.

Best of luck tomorrow everybody.
Me thinks Im f***ed!

T.Watson

Few more annoying property questions.

In relation to AP and Leasehold - has the LRC recommendation in relation to parliamentary conveyance been introduced?

Even though under Perry, the tenant has nothing to surrender or assign, are they still bound by the original covenants in contract with landlord or are the entitled not to pay them and squatter has to fulfil covenants (but isn't entitled to see the actual lease)?

What's the effect of adverse possession in relation to registered and unregistered land? If it's unregistered is there no parliamentary conveyance but there is if it's registered? Confusion!

Is the significance of Pye just that AP doesn't violate the ECHR - is there a need to know Pye in detail cause I know zilch about it other than two lines, lots of grand chambers!?

Sorry for all the questions but any pointers would be great. This is looking like an all nighter cram job.

Thanks in advance.

JCJCJC

T.Watson wrote: »

Few more annoying property questions.

In relation to AP and Leasehold - has the LRC recommendation in relation to parliamentary conveyance been introduced?

Even though under Perry, the tenant has nothing to surrender or assign, are they still bound by the original covenants in contract with landlord or are the entitled not to pay them and squatter has to fulfil covenants (but isn't entitled to see the actual lease)?

What's the effect of adverse possession in relation to registered and unregistered land? If it's unregistered is there no parliamentary conveyance but there is if it's registered? Confusion!

Is the significance of Pye just that AP doesn't violate the ECHR - is there a need to know Pye in detail cause I know zilch about it other than two lines, lots of grand chambers!?

Sorry for all the questions but any pointers would be great. This is looking like an all nighter cram job.

Thanks in advance.

Q1 - NO.
Q2 - maybe, no-one knows.
Q3 - depends on the unregistered title.
Q4 - Pye proved nothing new in the end, as far as Ireland goes, the higher standard of animus possidendi saved us.

AP doesn't come up in FE1's in any complex or sophisticated way requiring a knowledge of the subtleties. Just know the essentials, the squatter has to have animus possidendi from day 1 of the twelve-year period, and he has to have possession in sync with nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - no violence, no secrecy, no permission. The future-use theory is dead and buried - Cork Corp v Lynch, Leigh v Jack - it won't wash. ECHR isn't an issue, Graham and Beaulane saw it off. Judges don't like AP, Feehan v Leamy, the legal owner merely looked in over the hedge every so often, that sufficed, he kept his field - Niall Buckley SC wrote an article called 'Defeating Adverse Possession by looking in over the hedge' which made the point in the title.
The squatter has to act like an owner, erect buildings, plough and re-seed the ground etc, Dunne v CIE. If he merely grazes batty ponies as most of the case-law suggests, grazing is only a profit-a-prendre so courts are inclined to say he didn't oust the owner to the degree required to establish ap. IF however, from day 1, the squatter locked the gates, ploughed the field, planted a crop, barred all entrants, erected permanent structures - find for the squatter. He only gets the title of the party he ousted, so if the paper title owner has a 99-yr lease and squatter displaces him in yr 87, by yr 99 he has ousted the leaseholder but not the reversioner, he will have to squat for another 12 years to beat the reversionary interest - article by Una Woods.
Neat trick attempted in Perry v Woodfarm Homes - squatter on leasehold land subject to covenants. Squatter develops his 12 years. Leaseholder surrenders the lease to lessor for breach of covenant. Lessor gets reversion, and attempts to eject squatter. Not bad logic, but court didn't like it. Still worth a try.
Don't worry about complicated cases, understand 'straight' ap and you'll be fine, it come up in an uncomplicated way. Look out for successive squats - the dispossession has to be unbroken, the animus has to be there for 12 years no matter how many squatters were involved.
The FE1s never ask about state lands or foreshore, always 12-year periods.
It's 30 yrs on State lands and 60 yrs on foreshore, periods set out in the Statute of Limitations - be sure to mention it.

Nice, interesting real-life law. I love it.

frustratedTC

Can any1 explain to me offer and acceptance with regards to electronic communication? I'm totally confused

wez99950

Hey guys so right up the creek with contract - do you think i'll be covered by studying* the following topics:
Offer and Acceptance
Consideration
Estoppel
ICLR
Mistake
Privity
Misrep
Duress
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Bargains
Contractual Terms
Frustration
Remedies

I have notes on Illegal/void contracts but i don't think i have time to do that topic. Would be afraid that it will be to the detriment of all the other topics i've 'studied'.

*when i say study, 'reading' in the hope that i will get a divine intervention during the exam and i will suddenly develop a photographic memory! We can hope!

wez99950

frustratedTC wrote: »

Can any1 explain to me offer and acceptance with regards to electronic communication? I'm totally confused

My understanding is that the general rule of 'into the ears' applies and it's taken as if they are face to face and the communication is instantaneous (Denning in Entores). If there are issues, the offeror must indicate that he has not received acceptance (as in almost asking 'can you say that again?) if he doesn't the acceptance is presumed and he can't go back and claim that there was no acceptance.

The Brimnes case is also important in that it shows that there is no requirement for the electronic acceptance to be 'read' or 'received' in order for it to be valid communication.

The ECA Act - doesn't really play much of a role, just merely says under s9 that a contract is valid if done electronically. but the term 'receipt' may not be contstrued as valid acceptance in contract law.

EC Regulations - comes into play if the contract is in relation to say, buying things online - tickets, flights etc etc. The offeror must send an acknowledgement of the receipt which has to be done electronically and with no undue delay.

That's my understanding anyways! i could be totally wrong and i may have left a few things out - someone please fill in if i have!

happy_man2010

Can anyone clarify today's question 8 question? I believe the question was based on easements and the non-derrogation from grant. At first I thought it was a Landlord and Tenant question but I'm fairly sure it wasn't. Think the question was based on the facts of Wong v Beaumont Propery Trust. The facts of that case are very similar to the problem set out today. Would be interested to hear people's opinions.

Orla FitzP

happy_man2010 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify today's question 8 question? I believe the question was based on easements and the non-derrogation from grant. At first I thought it was a Landlord and Tenant question but I'm fairly sure it wasn't. Think the question was based on the facts of Wong v Beaumont Propery Trust. The facts of that case are very similar to the problem set out today. Would be interested to hear people's opinions.

Aw nooooo if it was easements i was stuck for a 5th but i would have known that???? grrr

happy_man2010

Orla FitzP wrote: »

Aw nooooo if it was easements i was stuck for a 5th but i would have known that???? grrr

Haha- sorry. I'm always the one stuck for a fifth too!