FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

UberStressed

Hogzy wrote: »

Val Corbett predicted the Tort paper 100%. Fairly impressive to say the least.

Anyone have the predictions for Constitutional? Anything to focus the last min cramming!

ElmoLaw

Charlie D wrote: »

Just a quick question, am I right in thinking that it is no longer the case that an examiner can't be appointed if receiver has been acting for more than fourteen days? Reading a sample paper saying that's the case but I was sure it no longer applies.

CORRECT- no examiner can be appointed to a company if an official liquidator has been appointed or where a receiver has been acting for a period longer than 14 days.

ElmoLaw

Are you guys studying all of shares? Im just doing Foss v Harbottle and s205- wondering if i need to do more for this topic AAH!!!

also was anyone there for the fe1 one day seminar at griffith- what did the lecturer mean by how the company makes decisions as a tip- does that mean the shareholder/director meetings???

All nighter here i come- thinking of ordering a late night pizza to keep my spirits up!!:):pac::pac::pac:

karlpilkington

Section 3(6) Companies (amendment) act 1990 "the court shall not give a hearing to a petition.... if a receiver stands appointed to the company .... for a continuous period of at least 3 days prior to the presentation of the petition"

Dal86

Does anyone know if capital maintenance is tipped to appear?!

Thanks

crystalmice

Dal86 wrote: »

Does anyone know if capital maintenance is tipped to appear?!

Thanks

Griffith tipped it at the one day.

@Elmolaw; I think that she meant directors and shareholders meetings, Im not 100% though, it was a bit ambiguous!

I think shares is quite important, its avery big topic so I dont think just doing remedies is enough, share transfer and duties of shareholders are both short and common enough questions if you have time I would try to bulk up shares a bit more.

Does anyone have any independent colleges tips for company? After Val Corbetts success today Im curious If stuck for time, anyone have an opinion on whether i should do disposition of assets or shareholders/directors meetings?

Charlie D

Cheers guys for that. I really hope capital maintenance isn't there yuck!

ElmoLaw

karlpilkington wrote: »

Section 3(6) Companies (amendment) act 1990 "the court shall not give a hearing to a petition.... if a receiver stands appointed to the company .... for a continuous period of at least 3 days prior to the presentation of the petition"

I thought this changed with the 1999 CA - im really confused now

lilfeely

Anyone know the predictions for contract?

Thanks

walrusgumble

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, Dr Carolan in his lecture on the 20 most important cases of 2010 last March in UCD said that Meadows was one of them. I've spent most of today re-reading it. It's one mofu of a judicial review case, there's more law in it than a lot of textbooks. It covers an immense amount of Irish and British judicial review.

Isn't Meadows mostly concerning administration law? Whether Keegan case is adequate for deciding judicial review of cases involving human rights etc - anxious scrutiny. is it relevant to constitution bar the fact of why judicial review s limited, as in the type of question one will be asked in these exams? the only two irish cases, i thought, that concern one, (yes the english lot were the source) is Keegan Stardust and the Okeefee Limerick Radio Case. Bar notion of fair procedures, where their really any constitutional issues in the case of an asylum seeker (meadows)?

Anyone reading it, avoid Hardiman's little tantrum he he, most of it is just him rehashing the facts of the case and implicitly giving his own view of the merits in the case, border line going above, in my opinion, the remit of judicial review of asylum cases or others (ie give leeway to experts/decision makers opinion,so long as its rationale etc)

Charlie D

Does anybody happen to have a sample answer on the March 2011 question on pre-incorporation contracts that they would be willing to send me:-)

JCJCJC

walrusgumble wrote: »

Isn't Meadows mostly concerning administration law? Whether Keegan case is adequate for deciding judicial review of cases involving human rights etc - anxious scrutiny. is it relevant to constitution bar the fact of why judicial review s limited, as in the type of question one will be asked in these exams? the only two irish cases, i thought, that concern one, (yes the english lot were the source) is Keegan Stardust and the Okeefee Limerick Radio Case. Bar notion of fair procedures, where their really any constitutional issues in the case of an asylum seeker (meadows)?

Anyone reading it, avoid Hardiman's little tantrum he he, most of it is just him rehashing the facts of the case and implicitly giving his own view of the merits in the case, border line going above, in my opinion, the remit of judicial review of asylum cases or others (ie give leeway to experts/decision makers opinion,so long as its rationale etc)

What EC was bringing from his analysis of Meadows was that it settled the JR standard in Ireland and rejected so-called Super-Wednesbury 'anxious scrutiny' additional tests developed piecemeal in the UK human rights cases like Mahmood and Bugdaycay. In Ireland, it's still therefore Wednesbury unreasonableness, Keegan, O'Keeffe and Radio Limerick - no shift in the standard of reasonableness. It also touched on ECHR, and the point there is the ECHR doen't amount to as much in Ireland as it may do in the UK because of the different constitutional framework, per the 2003 Act the ECHR yields to the constitution.

trying to cram

Dal86 wrote: »

Does anyone know if capital maintenance is tipped to appear?!

Thanks

Yes, it is - so boring, plus- could easily not recognise the question on the paper zzzzzzzzzz.

Not sure how I am going to remember all of this work tomorrow....

smjsmj

yeh its tipped to come up, agree with it being on the kinda boring side. really hope ive enough areas done and they come up.
anyone else staying in the red cow and can hear a car alarm goin off this last ages????
I know this is a nicer hotel to ibis but in ibis rooms you cnt here a thing inside your room.
fingers crossed we get a nice paper tomorrow.

Cherry_Angel

smjsmj wrote: »

yeh its tipped to come up, agree with it being on the kinda boring side. really hope ive enough areas done and they come up.
anyone else staying in the red cow and can hear a car alarm goin off this last ages????
I know this is a nicer hotel to ibis but in ibis rooms you cnt here a thing inside your room.
fingers crossed we get a nice paper tomorrow.

Saw the Garda Van outside an hour ago......Think it stopped after that!!

brian__foley

lilfeely wrote: »

Anyone know the predictions for contract?

Thanks

No predictions. Anyone "predicting" whats on the contract exam, is just looking the past and assuming its a rational guide to the future. That's a fine choice, but its a choice.

If you choose, you can base future predictions on past recurrences, which would indicate a core focus on contract formation, mistake, terms, discharge and remedies, privity. You'd also see recurring issues of legality, capacity and, in more recent times, duress and undue influence. Equally, that doesn't mean you won't see a whole essay question on, say, exclusion clauses or the parol evidence rule. The core topics have always been on the exam, but that's not a reason to believe they always will be. Add in a new examiner, and you simply have to know the law.

wez99950

brian__foley wrote: »

lilfeely wrote: »

Anyone know the predictions for contract?

Thanks

No predictions. Anyone "predicting" whats on the contract exam, is just looking the past and assuming its a rational guide to the future. That's a fine choice, but its a choice.

If you choose, you can base future predictions on past recurrences, which would indicate a core focus on contract formation, mistake, terms, discharge and remedies, privity. You'd also see recurring issues of legality, capacity and, in more recent times, duress and undue influence. Equally, that doesn't mean you won't see a whole essay question on, say, exclusion clauses or the parol evidence rule. The core topics have always been on the exam, but that's not a reason to believe they always will be. Add in a new examiner, and you simply have to know the law.

Hi Brian,

Was wondering would u be able to explain to me the Linden Gardens v Lenesta case and the exception it creates. I can't seem to get my head around the facts and what the conclusion is. I'm just thinking if a problem question arose on it, I'm not I would recognise it! Apologies if it is very simple!

Also, do you have any tips on how best to approach problem questions? I've been going through papers trying to pick out issues but very often I've missed one or two that i could have written on but simply didn't recognise it. Eg I often miss estoppel, that damages should also be discussed, recognising that it is a unilateral offer etc. I look out for hint words such as 'frustrated' or 'mistaken' but I'm still not recognising them all. The point of the exam i guess!

I'm thinking of maybe trying to do the essay questions as oppose the problem questions for fear of writing on the entirely wrong thing (it has happened when practising questions!). Better to be safe than sorry but I'm not sure if that's the right approach and whether it would be worth spending more time reading though the problem qs.

glengirlie

brian__foley wrote: »

No predictions. Anyone "predicting" whats on the contract exam, is just looking the past and assuming its a rational guide to the future. That's a fine choice, but its a choice.

If you choose, you can base future predictions on past recurrences, which would indicate a core focus on contract formation, mistake, terms, discharge and remedies, privity. You'd also see recurring issues of legality, capacity and, in more recent times, duress and undue influence. Equally, that doesn't mean you won't see a whole essay question on, say, exclusion clauses or the parol evidence rule. The core topics have always been on the exam, but that's not a reason to believe they always will be. Add in a new examiner, and you simply have to know the law.

Is there a new examiner in Contract this sitting?

randomuser77

Not bad!

Question 7 was weird though. What was the story with Jackie? I've heard people say things like fraudulent trading or s29 or s31 but no one seems sure.

Charlie D

Didn't do that question. I thought the paper was pretty fair. He seems to be putting in a new topic each time now though seeing the question on inspectors.

Caoileann

I only had three on the questions paper- ROTC, SLP and Shares. I hadnt a notion of winding up and cap maintenance but I just took as much as I could from the acts. Do I have any chance of passing?

Charlie D

Last time I was even worse than that but I passed on 50. I remember only knowing the SLP question properly and making stuff up all over the place. I never expected I would pass it and then fail criminal. Think positive because most people are stuck for questions.

smjsmj

Think the paper was ok, kinda paniced at the start but once read the paper i was fine, yeh wasnt sure what to say about jackie. not a director of the company. so glad i looked at capital maintenance tho.
I really think with company now you cnt be relying on banker questions such as corporate borrowings anymore as a guaranteed question.
A question on company investigations was completly out of the blue.
hopefully i done enough to pass.
lunch and onto constitutional.

Cherry_Angel

I would bank on there being a question on Consumer Protection if Cliona Kelly drafted it. She teaches a module on it in NUIG!!

glengirlie

Cherry_Angel wrote: »

I would bank on there being a question on Consumer Protection if Cliona Kelly drafted it. She teaches a module on it in NUIG!!

Is Cliona Kelly the new contract Examiner? Yikes, had her in NUIG....nice person, tough marker Have totally left out consumer protection, didnt think it was worth it....

glengirlie

glengirlie wrote: »

Is Cliona Kelly the new contract Examiner? Yikes, had her in NUIG....nice person, tough marker Have totally left out consumer protection, didnt think it was worth it....

Just read there on law society website that Cliona is the new examiner, oh dear, I was dreading contract originally, but now I am even more dreading it!!! Hoping she will be nice in her first go, although I had her in her first year in NUIG and her standard is very high I also took her Consumer module there and she was intent on us knowing everything if we expected average-high grades....

wez99950

glengirlie wrote: »

glengirlie wrote: »

Is Cliona Kelly the new contract Examiner? Yikes, had her in NUIG....nice person, tough marker Have totally left out consumer protection, didnt think it was worth it....

Just read there on law society website that Cliona is the new examiner, oh dear, I was dreading contract originally, but now I am even more dreading it!!! Hoping she will be nice in her first go, although I had her in her first year in NUIG and her standard is very high I also took her Consumer module there and she was intent on us knowing everything if we expected average-high grades....

Ive left it out too and I'm going to leave it out. If it comes up it comes up and I just wont do that question! I'm just going to focus on the topics I've covered and know them well and with some luck that'll get me through. I don't want to risk spreading myself too thinly - I don't need to answer everything that comes up and hopefully I've covered enough to deal with 5

glengirlie

wez99950 wrote: »

Ive left it out too and I'm going to leave it out. If it comes up it comes up and I just wont do that question! I'm just going to focus on the topics I've covered and know them well and with some luck that'll get me through. I don't want to risk spreading myself too thinly - I don't need to answer everything that comes up and hopefully I've covered enough to deal with 5

Me too here's hoping there'll be 5 I can do and won't have to rack my brain for the stuff Cliona wittered on about in the Consumer module in NUIG!!!

sazzyfiz

hey guys....

hope exams are goin well!!

does anyone know what was hinted for property? roll on the 13th

cotch

hey guys

What topics are you focusing on For contract I'm mainly looking at

promissory estoppel
Formaal and evidentiary requirements
contractual terms
exemption
misrep
illigal contracts
discharge
remedies

anything you thing needs to be added or removed from the list ??

cheers guys ...