FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

steph86

Have to say i thought that was a nice paper although my last q was rushed as usual.
disappointed there was no q on reg and unreg land tho.
Forgot to mention the civil partnership bill in the family q but hopefully wont lose too many parks.
contract left. this time tomorrow we'll all be finished.

CFOLEY85

Co ownership came up in a problem question yeah??

05588081

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.

Think q8 was a covenants? Was it not?

05588081

CFOLEY85 wrote: »

Co ownership came up in a problem question yeah??

Ya

CFOLEY85

05588081 wrote: »

Ya

Oh thank god. unsure about q8, Id stayed well clear of it.

Bit of a throw not have the 4part questions. Although all in all I was happy with the paper, thankfully.

CFOLEY85

steph86 wrote: »

Have to say i thought that was a nice paper although my last q was rushed as usual.
disappointed there was no q on reg and unreg land tho.
Forgot to mention the civil partnership bill in the family q but hopefully wont lose too many parks.
contract left. this time tomorrow we'll all be finished.

Dont think it would have been neccy to talk about civil partnership bill as the question related to spouses and civil partnership is for same sex partners and co habitees....

Thats what I reckon anyway:)

doing

Great paper in my opinion.

What did you all answer to Q3? Spousal Rights restricting the freedom of the guy drafting the will? I know all the GCD manual cases relating to spousal rights, difficult to use them as the basis of an argument on whether they're good or not though.

I listed all the cases and said most were examples of circumventing the bequeather's wishes, I said if you look at them in the context of s(117) [childrens rights] and the proposal to extend them to co habiting couples by the law reform commission in 2004 the law is basically, beneficiary by beneficiary, taking your right to control of your property [albeit beyond the grave] away, and it fails the test of proportionality and is repugnant to the constitution 40.3 in my opinion, even taking into account the 'social justice clause'.

Bit worried about that though because I basically pulled it out of my hole and it sounds very flimsy to me, had to stitch an opinion together on the spot though.

rebel86

Please say the issue in Q4 today was co-ownership?!

doing

rebel86 wrote: »

Please say the issue in Q4 today was co-ownership?!

What else could it have been?

rebel86

doing wrote: »

What else could it have been?

I know, but I wouldn't put it past me to have completely misidentified the issue! Thanks for putting my mind at ease. Hopefully I did enough to scrape a pass.

doing

rebel86 wrote: »

I know, but I wouldn't put it past me to have completely misidentified the issue! Thanks for putting my mind at ease. Hopefully I did enough to scrape a pass.

No, I meant seriously what else could it have been? You're after giving me a fright there.

rebel86

I really don't think it could have been anything else! Anyone else out there care to clarify it for us!

Hogzy

steph86 wrote: »

Have to say i thought that was a nice paper although my last q was rushed as usual.
disappointed there was no q on reg and unreg land tho.
Forgot to mention the civil partnership bill in the family q but hopefully wont lose too many parks.
contract left. this time tomorrow we'll all be finished.

BALLS i knew there was something i was forgetting to mention :mad::mad::mad:

Hogzy

I cant believe treasure trove came up again. I went over it on tuesday night for the sake of a few minutes of learning.
I was shocked mortgages didnt come up.

Also no 4 part or 3 part question was a bit of a shock.

Does anyone find they use less case law for property than other topics. My answer for the problem question about the validity of the will that was made out had 4 cases in it. Yet i feel i covered everything.

Just tucking into my first beer now in weeks. Sorry to all those who have an exam tomorrow. Your time will come

doing

Hogzy wrote: »

Does anyone find they use less case law for property than other topics. My answer for the problem question about the validity of the will that was made out had 4 cases in it. Yet i feel i covered everything.

Exactly the same. Very narrow focused questions, except for the treasure trove one which covered everything on ownership really.

steph86

rebel86 wrote: »

Please say the issue in Q4 today was co-ownership?!

Yeh it was def ownership. was suprissed to see it as a prob q. kinda thru me at the start.

steph86

Hogzy wrote: »

I cant believe treasure trove came up again. I went over it on tuesday night for the sake of a few minutes of learning.
I was shocked mortgages didnt come up.

Also no 4 part or 3 part question was a bit of a shock.

Does anyone find they use less case law for property than other topics. My answer for the problem question about the validity of the will that was made out had 4 cases in it. Yet i feel i covered everything.

Just tucking into my first beer now in weeks. Sorry to all those who have an exam tomorrow. Your time will come

yeh there is far less caselaw than in the likes of tort.
Yeh i couldnt believe it either but thought it was an easy enough paper if you had those topics covered.

Yeh have to say i would love a nice cold bottle of coors light. roll on tomoro and ill be straight to the bar for one after the exam.:)

T.Watson

I messed up property in a major way. Read some of those random problem questions quicky and didn't cop one was on co-ownership and the didn't know what 8 was about. Annoyed cause if hadn't been so dismissive and figure out it was co-ownership I'd have done it.

Hadn't prepared landlord and tenant law so couldn't do that either! I gave succession a lash and made a propert hash of AP. Didn't like the format of the paper at all. She seems to have her favourite topics and leaves out big things like mortgages etc in favour of...treasure trove (which is about 5 lines in old manual I have!). The absence of those do 2 of 4 questions totally threw me aswell doh.

I'd say I'll only pass it if the examiner is drunk correcting it!

rebel86

steph86 wrote: »

Yeh it was def ownership. was suprissed to see it as a prob q. kinda thru me at the start.

That's what happened to me too! Thanks for clearing that up. Much appreciated.

bob_lob_law

Yeah I panicked as well then realised that it was a co-ownership question. My succession questions had practically no case law. The question relating to the LRS was so narrow, I just wrote about two pages of bs. My other questions were quite short as well, not much over three pages, I don't know if it will be enough to pass.

What did people say re the will? I know I shouldn't be doing this post mortem craic, have contract tomorrow to get on with....

Hogzy

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Yeah I panicked as well then realised that it was a co-ownership question. My succession questions had practically no case law. The question relating to the LRS was so narrow, I just wrote about two pages of bs. My other questions were quite short as well, not much over three pages, I don't know if it will be enough to pass.

What did people say re the will? I know I shouldn't be doing this post mortem craic, have contract tomorrow to get on with....

I said the first part (unmodified version) was enforceable because the codicil was a seperate document to the will and the codicil failed because it was witnessed by a beneficiary.
I didnt know what to say then about the €50K so i just said the husband would get it.

I also said it was not validly destroyed and that secondary evidence could be used as per Sugden v St Leonards (which i just realised i called Guckien v St Leonards in the bloody exam. SH*T)

doing

Hogzy wrote: »

I said the first part (unmodified version) was enforceable because the codicil was a seperate document to the will and the codicil failed because it was witnessed by a beneficiary.
I didnt know what to say then about the €50K so i just said the husband would get it.

I also said it was not validly destroyed and that secondary evidence could be used as per Sugden v St Leonards (which i just realised i called Guckien v St Leonards in the bloody exam. SH*T)

When you say codicil you mean the writing below the signature? I just said you can't write below the signature and add provisions to the will under s (78), didn't know that would even be considered a codicil. I forgot about Sugden v Leonards though.

Hogzy

doing wrote: »

When you say codicil you mean the writing below the signature? I just said you can't write below the signature and add provisions to the will under s (78), didn't know that would even be considered a codicil. I forgot about Sugden v Leonards though.

I dont know I could be wrong. I thought you could not amend an executed will other than by codicil?

A codicil is an amendment to a will that has to be witnessed by 2 people again.

glengirlie

So lacking the motivation for Contract 2mro Just want to get it over.

Have "studied" or at least I plan to have:

Offer,
Acceptance
Consideration
Intention to create....
Mistake
Misrep
Damages
Privity
Remedies
Frustration,

I just hope that is enough to pass me and get 5. Is there anything there that anyone reckons is blaringly missing from my list???

Nang

glengirlie wrote: »

So lacking the motivation for Contract 2mro Just want to get it over.

Have "studied" or at least I plan to have:

Offer,
Acceptance
Consideration
Intention to create....
Mistake
Misrep
Damages
Privity
Remedies
Frustration,

I just hope that is enough to pass me and get 5. Is there anything there that anyone reckons is blaringly missing from my list???

A full question on capacity of minors seems to be pretty popular...but that seems like most of the course that you've listed there!

glengirlie

Nang wrote: »

A full question on capacity of minors seems to be pretty popular...but that seems like most of the course that you've listed there!

Thats great thanks, just had thought of minors there and capacity, dont have much on it and time is running out so will do my best!!!!

At this point I am hoping for divine insiraption and a burst of energy. Getting really sick of staring at the four walls of my room in the Red Cow Roll on 12.30pm 2mro!!!

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

I said the first part (unmodified version) was enforceable because the codicil was a seperate document to the will and the codicil failed because it was witnessed by a beneficiary.
I didnt know what to say then about the €50K so i just said the husband would get it.

I also said it was not validly destroyed and that secondary evidence could be used as per Sugden v St Leonards (which i just realised i called Guckien v St Leonards in the bloody exam. SH*T)

Ah you had the right air of it, they shouldn't be hard on you for getting one party name wrong - I put down Palmer for Parker earlier in the week. Glad property went well for you overall, from the impression I'm getting from reading today's posts.

ally10

Finding it so hard to work up the motivation to study today..hopefully what I have read today will just magically come back to me in the exam

on the plus side..

only 15 hours and were FREEEE

Thirdfox

I said that the codicil was valid but that the gifting was invalid (under s.82 SA 65?) So effectively the codicil did...nothing - though revealing some intention of the testator (not that it mattered - the main body was clear and thus s.90 couldn't be used - Re Collins/Rowe v. Law etc.






As for contract - this is bugging the hell out of me - what does everyone think about the internet contract formation scenario?

i.e. Aer Lingus take your credit card details, (you've taken advantage of their awesome €1 flight to NY deal - honestly believed of course ) and given you an automated message... is that valid acceptance? (Communication?)

What if they take 1 euro from your credit card account? What if their terms and conditions state that they can refund you any money they took in case of mistake?

I can forsee this being another question similar to ones that's been asked before - and my book just doesn't seem to answer it definitively

JCJCJC

As for contract - this is bugging the hell out of me - what does everyone think about the internet contract formation scenario?

i.e. Aer Lingus take your credit card details, (you've taken advantage of their awesome €1 flight to NY deal - honestly believed of course and given you an automated message... is that valid acceptance? (Communication?)

If you purported to buy the aeroplane itself from Aer Lingus for €1 no court would accept that you thought you had a deal, and the contract would be rescinded for mistake. However, if you bought a flight to America for €1, it is open to you to argue that such a thing is not actually far-fetched, flights do sell at a level that seems irrational, and you bona-fide entered a contract on that basis thinking you had bought a loss-leader marketing guy's product etc. That's the point of the question - can Aer Lingus put up a reasonable argument that they made a mistake that you must have known of, and it would be an unconscionable bargain to let you fly for €1. The general sense of it is contained in the Ryanair prize case, let me know if you need a url or better citation.

What if they take 1 euro from your credit card account? What if their terms and conditions state that they can refund you any money they took in case of mistake?

If you enter a contract subject to an express term, aren't you bound by it? You are into an actual/constructive notice argument at this stage, remember the old railway tickets cases, same principle.

I can forsee this being another question similar to ones that's been asked before - and my book just doesn't seem to answer it definitively :

Reduce it to basic principles, offer, acceptance, contract formation, unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, breach of terms, breach of warranty, breach of condition etc - if you analyse it correctly and not let yourself be distracted by the modern setting of the fact pattern, it should work out.