FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

randomuser77

Question for people doing equity. Y'know the way there's an option question every year in which you have to answer two out of three topics? Are there any topics that are particularly likely? I'm thinking things like the rule in Strong v Bird, Donatio Mortis Causa, the equitable maxims etc.

JLex

randomuser77 wrote: »

That sounds good. Well done on being so prepared!

I'm thinking about doing disposition of assets too, if I can work quickly enough on what I have set out to do, but have you seen it appear in a question involving winding up?

I'm only omitting disposition of assets because it appeared on the last paper, although I know that may not be a good indicator of whether it's going to appear or not.

hey- disposition of assets is related to
a) floating charges- invalidation of such
b) directors duties- fraudulent preferences and fraudulent disposition, and also the fact that directors can be held liable for fraudulent trading for both under s160
c) powers of liquidator
i just think this is very topical at the moment plus only 9 pages in GCD manual.

Kamilat

randomuser77 wrote: »

Question for people doing equity. Y'know the way there's an option question every year in which you have to answer two out of three topics? Are there any topics that are particularly likely? I'm thinking things like the rule in Strong v Bird, Donatio Mortis Causa, the equitable maxims etc.

Yeap I'm thinking Strong v Bird, equitable maxims and maybe doctrine of satisfaction. DMC is usually a full question on it's own and hasn't been up in a while. What topics r u covering?

doing

My GCD 2009 Contract book seems to argue that when contractors negotiate a limitation clause on a 3rd party's behalf (as their agent) without getting their permission first, they've have failed to fulfill one of the terms of Midlands Silicone V Scrutton ltd. ("The contracting part has authority from the 3rd party to act as agent")

But the judgement in Midlands Silicone V Scrutton ltd was actually:
"(thirdly) the carrier has authority from the stevedore to do that, or perhaps later ratification by the stevedore would suffice"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scruttons_Ltd_v_Midland_Silicones_Ltd


So it seems like the authority to act as agent and negotiate a limitation clause on the 3rd party's behalf can be given by the 3rd party retrospectively, so what's the problem? Seems like the 3rd party can just say 'Yes, we'd like to benefit from the limitation clause you negotiated for us, thanks'.

Anyone understand this?

randomuser77

Kamilat wrote: »

Yeap I'm thinking Strong v Bird, equitable maxims and maybe doctrine of satisfaction. DMC is usually a full question on it's own and hasn't been up in a while. What topics r u covering?

Whatever I can study between that Friday after my Contract exam and the exam on Monday (study plan fail). At any rate, a friend of mine told me that Griffith predicted the following:

Injunctions
Undue Unfluence
Proprietary Estoppel
3 Certainties
Donatio Mortis Causa
Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres
Resulting Trusts
Trusteeship

He also said that Tracing is unlikely

[Legal Disclaimer] Bear in mind that this is third hand information now so don't come complaining to me if it don't work out that way :P [/Legal Disclaimer]

Kamilat

randomuser77 wrote: »

Kamilat wrote: »

Yeap I'm thinking Strong v Bird, equitable maxims and maybe doctrine of satisfaction. DMC is usually a full question on it's own and hasn't been up in a while. What topics r u covering?

Whatever I can study between that Friday after my Contract exam and the exam on Monday (study plan fail). At any rate, a friend of mine told me that Griffith predicted the following:

Injunctions
Undue Unfluence
Proprietary Estoppel
3 Certainties
Donatio Mortis Causa
Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres
Resulting Trusts
Trusteeship

He also said that Tracing is unlikely

[Legal Disclaimer] Bear in mind that this is third hand information now so don't come complaining to me if it don't work out that way :P [/Legal Disclaimer]

ha ok! That's sounds like an ok paper thou, so hopefully it works out that way. Cheers

Hogzy

randomuser77 wrote: »

Whatever I can study between that Friday after my Contract exam and the exam on Monday (study plan fail). At any rate, a friend of mine told me that Griffith predicted the following:

Injunctions
Undue Unfluence
Proprietary Estoppel
3 Certainties
Donatio Mortis Causa
Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres
Resulting Trusts
Trusteeship

He also said that Tracing is unlikely

[Legal Disclaimer] Bear in mind that this is third hand information now so don't come complaining to me if it don't work out that way :P [/Legal Disclaimer]

Funny predictions, 3 Certainties came up last year, Undue Influence has come up the last 5 papers (I heard there is no justification for such a long run and that it will probably stop), Estoppel also came up on the last 2 papers and its never come up 3 times in a row.

If i were to make an Educated Guess:

Q1. Injunctions.
Q2. Charitable/CyPres
Q3. Resulting Trusts.
Q4. (3 Part) - DMC, Rule in Strong v Bird, Rectification, Presumption Of Advancement
Q5. Constructive Trusts.
Q6. Secret Trusts.
Q7. Doctrine Of Satisfaction.
Q8. Tracing

I cant see Trusteeship, Undue Influence or Estoppel Coming up. All 3 have come up on the last 3 papers.

brian__foley

doing wrote: »

My GCD 2009 Contract book seems to argue that when contractors negotiate a limitation clause on a 3rd party's behalf (as their agent) without getting their permission first, they've have failed to fulfill one of the terms of Midlands Silicone V Scrutton ltd. ("The contracting part has authority from the 3rd party to act as agent")

But the judgement in Midlands Silicone V Scrutton ltd was actually:
"(thirdly) the carrier has authority from the stevedore to do that, or perhaps later ratification by the stevedore would suffice"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scruttons_Ltd_v_Midland_Silicones_Ltd


So it seems like the authority to act as agent and negotiate a limitation clause on the 3rd party's behalf can be given by the 3rd party retrospectively, so what's the problem? Seems like the 3rd party can just say 'Yes, we'd like to benefit from the limitation clause you negotiated for us, thanks'.

Anyone understand this?

As with your other post specifically made with reference to the materials you're using, you seem to be missing the point here. The point made (made with reference to the past-recurring question of reform and the LRC report being relevant for the exam, and more so now) is that the agency "exception" - for it to work properly - requires specific authority for it to make any real sense in the law of agency. Scruttons and other cases, as the manual says, make it clear that the Courts were not really interested in the exception making a huge of amount of sense as regards the law of agency, but rather with carving out a sensible way around the rigors of privity.

The whole point is that the actual application of the law of agency has to be skewed and stretched to fit the desired result and the very fact of the conclusion in Scruttons (on the facts) indicates precisely this.

So, that feeds into the general question of reform - isn't there a good reason to have a general rule in favour of third party benefit when the very methods we use at common law to achieve that have to strained and stretched to reach their goals? Why not just reform the law instead of abusing the law of agency?

This is something that is always discussed and examined in class.

Forgive the direct response, but I do feel that when your posts are prefaced by the latent "my materials have it wrong" element to them, I have to respond.

dynamokev

Hi there

Does anyone have an up to date exam grid for EU and Constitutional, I can swap you any of the exam grids for it.

Does anyone have any tips from the GCD/IC as to what are the hot topics in Constitutional and EU?

mrsuperclear

randomuser77 wrote: »

Whatever I can study between that Friday after my Contract exam and the exam on Monday (study plan fail). At any rate, a friend of mine told me that Griffith predicted the following:

Injunctions
Undue Unfluence
Proprietary Estoppel
3 Certainties
Donatio Mortis Causa
Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres
Resulting Trusts
Trusteeship

He also said that Tracing is unlikely

[Legal Disclaimer] Bear in mind that this is third hand information now so don't come complaining to me if it don't work out that way :P [/Legal Disclaimer]

Your friend lied, they weren't the predictions Griffith gave (although kind of close). In fact, he really really lied since they predicted tracing was coming up. You really find out who your friends are come exam time :P

frustratedTC

Would i be safe leaving out capital maintenance and meetings for company? Its just such a huge course? Is it a subject ppl tend to repeat a lot

Nang

mrsuperclear wrote: »

Your friend lied, they weren't the predictions Griffith gave (although kind of close). In fact, he really really lied since they predicted tracing was coming up. You really find out who your friends are come exam time :P

Would you be able to give the predictions then please?! I heard that tracing was left off the course on the independent colleges lectures this year (but still in the manual).

Nang

boomtown84 wrote: »

Did mortgages come up on the last exam and if so was it judgment mortgages or not?

Mortgages didn't come up on the last paper...

doing

brian__foley wrote: »

As with your other post specifically made with reference to the materials you're using, you seem to be missing the point here. The point made (made with reference to the past-recurring question of reform and the LRC report being relevant for the exam, and more so now) is that the agency "exception" - for it to work properly - requires specific authority for it to make any real sense in the law of agency. Scruttons and other cases, as the manual says, make it clear that the Courts were not really interested in the exception making a huge of amount of sense as regards the law of agency, but rather with carving out a sensible way around the rigors of privity.

The whole point is that the actual application of the law of agency has to be skewed and stretched to fit the desired result and the very fact of the conclusion in Scruttons (on the facts) indicates precisely this.

So, that feeds into the general question of reform - isn't there a good reason to have a general rule in favour of third party benefit when the very methods we use at common law to achieve that have to strained and stretched to reach their goals? Why not just reform the law instead of abusing the law of agency?

This is something that is always discussed and examined in class.

Forgive the direct response, but I do feel that when your posts are prefaced by the latent "my materials have it wrong" element to them, I have to respond.

First of all, thanks for answering.

Second, I didn't know the guy who wrote the book was posting here.

I wasn't saying your book was wrong, just that I didn't understand the line of reasoning in it, that's all. That's why I said 'anyone understand this?', instead of 'this guy has it wrong'.

JessieJ

Can anybody shed some light on the effect of the Zambrano case on EU Citizenship to me plllllllease?

What's everybody studying for EU? Any tips?

brian__foley

doing wrote: »

First of all, thanks for answering.

Second, I didn't know the guy who wrote the book was posting here.

I wasn't saying your book was wrong, just that I didn't understand the line of reasoning in it, that's all. That's why I said 'anyone understand this?', instead of 'this guy has it wrong'.

Thanks. I didn't say I wrote it. I just have an interest in defending GCD's materials generally. The inference of your posts, as I read them, was that the manuals didn't contain your answers and that you had to go to external sources to get corrections, which I didn't feel was accurate given what is in the manuals.

doing

brian__foley wrote: »

Thanks. I didn't say I wrote it. I just have an interest in defending GCD's materials generally. The inference of your posts, as I read them, was that the manuals didn't contain your answers and that you had to go to external sources to get corrections, which I didn't feel was accurate given what is in the manuals.

I just meant that I was struggling to get to grips with the stuff and was asking for help. Never said the manuals were 'wrong' or anything like that. It's explanations I was looking for, as opposed to corrections.

sazzyfiz

Hey guys

just wondering if anyone had any griffith sample answrs for tort, i have griffith and independent property ones i can swap in exchange?? just PM me:D

also any tips for tort??

Orla FitzP

JessieJ wrote: »

Can anybody shed some light on the effect of the Zambrano case on EU Citizenship to me plllllllease?

What's everybody studying for EU? Any tips?

Eu is the BANE of my life right now there's a part of me that wishes Germany would leave the euro just so I wouldn't do the exam- then the sensibility of the future Of the economy kicks in....anyway I'm looking at Today
Art 101/102
Citizenship
All the free movements people services goods workers...
Things I find hard would b- prelim reference and equlailty as iv left them til only now to do- sample answers greatly accepted!!
what's the Griffith lecturer like for EU does anybody no???

MoneyMilo

Nang wrote: »

Would you be able to give the predictions then please?! I heard that tracing was left off the course on the independent colleges lectures this year (but still in the manual).

Looking at how frequently Tracing has come up in the past, I don't know why Independent Colleges left it out..?

emooo

Glad everyone else seems to hate EU as much as i do! Im leaving out freedom of services/workers... just couldnt get my head around it to focus! Any tips, sorta going into it blind at the minute! Many thanks!
I'm doing the following:

institutions
competition law
Freedom of goods
impact on national legal systems
general principles of EU law
equality
citizenship
preliminary ref
MS liability
basic infringement proceedings
private int'l law
judicial review

Hoping for the best, as everything has been cut down!

JCJCJC

cooper10 wrote: »

Passing Off was on the last paper - probably not likely to come up again so soon. I don't think Defamation was a whole ques on the last one (think it was a minor part of a question) so prob likely it'll be there. It is long though

Defamation is all new because of the new 2009 Act - there's a recent case here brought under the new act that might therefore be worth knowing, it only went up on bailii in the past few days.

JCJCJC

Would anybody be able to give me a quick summary of the facts in DPP -v- Douglas & Hayes [1985] please?

Vera12

emooo wrote: »

Glad everyone else seems to hate EU as much as i do! Im leaving out freedom of services/workers... just couldnt get my head around it to focus! Any tips, sorta going into it blind at the minute! Many thanks!
I'm doing the following:

institutions
competition law
Freedom of goods
impact on national legal systems
general principles of EU law
equality
citizenship
preliminary ref
MS liability
basic infringement proceedings
private int'l law
judicial review

Hoping for the best, as everything has been cut down!

I'm covering:
All competition
Mergers
Control of undertakings
State Aids
All the fundamental freedoms
Citizenship
Pre Reference
Supremacy
Direct Effect
MS Liability
Institutions.

So basically leaving out fundamental rights etc, procedures before EU courts, equality and Private.

Should I try to cover anything else or do you reckon that I'll get 5 q out of this? I think my head will explode if I try to put more EU law into it

Orla FitzP

Vera12 wrote: »

emooo wrote: »

Glad everyone else seems to hate EU as much as i do! Im leaving out freedom of services/workers... just couldnt get my head around it to focus! Any tips, sorta going into it blind at the minute! Many thanks!
I'm doing the following:

institutions
competition law
Freedom of goods
impact on national legal systems
general principles of EU law
equality
citizenship
preliminary ref
MS liability
basic infringement proceedings
private int'l law
judicial review

Hoping for the best, as everything has been cut down!

I'm covering:
All competition
Mergers
Control of undertakings
State Aids
All the fundamental freedoms
Citizenship
Pre Reference
Supremacy
Direct Effect
MS Liability
Institutions.

So basically leaving out fundamental rights etc, procedures before EU courts, equality and Private.

Should I try to cover anything else or do you reckon that I'll get 5 q out of this? I think my head will explode if I try to put more EU law into it

Totally forgot about mergers? Do u think hel give brussells 2 a go again???
I just hate eu....

emooo

Vera12 wrote: »

I'm covering:
All competition
Mergers
Control of undertakings
State Aids
All the fundamental freedoms
Citizenship
Pre Reference
Supremacy
Direct Effect
MS Liability
Institutions.

So basically leaving out fundamental rights etc, procedures before EU courts, equality and Private.

Should I try to cover anything else or do you reckon that I'll get 5 q out of this? I think my head will explode if I try to put more EU law into it

I definitely think you have enough, Im a bit like yourself, just can't get anymore in there! I might run over mergers... Its quite small so i should be able to spend a few hours on it!

Charlie D

Hope the cramming is going well. Are any other people using the 2008 edition of the Companies Acts? I guess this shouldn't be a problem??

crystalmice

frustratedTC wrote: »

Would i be safe leaving out capital maintenance and meetings for company? Its just such a huge course? Is it a subject ppl tend to repeat a lot

Hi,
Its my first time sitting company but I do think you will be safe leaving those out- you are able to leave some things out as the questions are not overly mixed (judging by past papers) and that is very little, Im leaving out alot more due to time constraints, including auditors, company investigation, liability for tort/crime, voluntary liquidation and disposition of assets..I will try to cover some of those if time allows.
The pass rate for company has been very poor, one of the worst, it was down around 30% for the last few years. But, it made a big leap up to 50% passing in the last sitting, so hopefully the examiners will want to sustain that and will give a reasonable paper again!

colonel1

crystalmice wrote: »

Hi,
Its my first time sitting company but I do think you will be safe leaving those out- you are able to leave some things out as the questions are not overly mixed (judging by past papers) and that is very little, Im leaving out alot more due to time constraints, including auditors, company investigation, liability for tort/crime, voluntary liquidation and disposition of assets..I will try to cover some of those if time allows.
The pass rate for company has been very poor, one of the worst, it was down around 30% for the last few years. But, it made a big leap up to 50% passing in the last sitting, so hopefully the examiners will want to sustain that and will give a reasonable paper again!

Hey crystalmice, I would suggest that you try to cover disposition of assets, as that does come up. Meetings was quite popular 2 sittings ago, and it is a subject he likes. Capital maintenance could be due a run, as it hasn't come up since October 2009 [as far as I recall]. Having said that, it isn't easy to predict this particular examiner, just make sure that essential topics like directors are covered. Borrowing, which didn't come up in March 2011, may make an appearance this time round.

Good luck.

colonel1

Charlie D wrote: »

Hope the cramming is going well. Are any other people using the 2008 edition of the Companies Acts? I guess this shouldn't be a problem??

I used the older edition in March 2011, and it was no problem Charlie D. Just make sure that you know by heart the amendment which the 2009 act makes to s31 of the 1990 act, as obviously you won't have that to hand in the exam.

Good luck.