FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

JCJCJC

law girl wrote: »

What's missing form that list??

treasure trove, landlord and tenant

sazzyfiz

JCJCJC wrote: »

treasure trove, landlord and tenant

is treasure trove not finding?

corkgirl88

For EQUITY, i am covering

injunctions
specific performance
rectification
recission
estoppel
express trusts
constitution of trusts
secret trusts
resulting trusts
constructive trusts
trustees duties and powers
tracing

I have left out charities, doctrine of satisfaction and property rights of cohabitees.

will i be covered
What is everyone else covering??

Hogzy

Link To CityColleges night Before Notes

corkgirl88 wrote: »

For EQUITY, i am covering

I have left out charities, doctrine of satisfaction and property rights of cohabitees.

will i be covered
What is everyone else covering??

Charitable trusts and Cy Pres should really be covered. Its a fairly simple chapter.

frustratedTC

JCJCJC wrote: »

treasure trove, landlord and tenant

Estates, hybrid estates, landlord and tenant law, settled land

JCJCJC

sazzyfiz wrote: »

is treasure trove not finding?

Clasically, treasure trove referred to objects of gold or silver, >51% precious metals per Lord Denning. Finding could be anything. The distinction is a bit obsolete now because the law on it is now on a statutory footing in Ireland and the material is irrelevant - wood, paper, leather etc can all be deemed to be treasure trove. I used the term treasure trove because that is what the examiner called it in a past paper.

sazzyfiz

JCJCJC wrote: »

Clasically, treasure trove referred to objects of gold or silver, >51% precious metals per Lord Denning. Finding could be anything. The distinction is a bit obsolete now because the law on it is now on a statutory footing in Ireland and the material is irrelevant - wood, paper, leather etc can all be deemed to be treasure trove. I used the term treasure trove becasue that is what the examiner called it in a part paper.

so for the purposes of the exam treasure trove and finding are the same thing and he hasnt left treasure trove out??? need to cut down on the topics here and ur scaring me:eek:

Hogzy

sazzyfiz wrote: »

so for the purposes of the exam treasure trove and finding are the same thing and he hasnt left treasure trove out??? need to cut down on the topics here and ur scaring me:eek:

Tresure Trove is about 6 cases id say. its unbelievably easy. Although it came up the last 3 papers i think. It was the first question i did on my property paper last year. I was delighted when it came up because i knew everything about it inside out. Passed the paper with flying colours, probably because the examiner saw my perfect answer and assumed the rest of my paper would be perfect so didnt bother reading it. :cool::p

JCJCJC

sazzyfiz wrote: »

so for the purposes of the exam treasure trove and finding are the same thing and he hasnt left treasure trove out??? need to cut down on the topics here and ur scaring me:eek:

Appreciate you are stressed but they aren't fully the same thing. Under the general heading treasure trove the standard textbooks (Wylie, Lyall, Pearse & Mee) deal also with rights to overhead airspace and so on as an attribute of land ownership so there is a little more in it than finding objects under or over the ground, but the difference is really a bit semantic I suppose. Agree entirely with Hogzy, it's easy to do and very easy to get right, I did the question too. If the found object is bronze, or brass, or Kryptonite, it gives you the opportunity to pop in a sentence or two to say that it would't have been deemed to be treasure trove at common law pre the Act etc, shows you know something about the topic. Mention Webb's case and also throw in that it was important in constitutional law and equity.

db707

db707 wrote: »

Equity- notes handed out by City Colleges
Looking at list of rescission cases and 2011 case of Mooreview Developments v First Active. Just had a quick look and can see no relevance whatsoever. Does any know the point to be made from this case?

Anyone else come across this one?

parripassu

Hi I am wondering if someone could explain the following provision, S3(3) of Charities Act which is supposed to mean that the Act allows 'greater flexibility' when construing the public benefit.

It outlines that a 'a gift will not be regarded as being for the public benefit unless it is intended to benefit the public or a section of the public'. The Act goes on to say that to provide a 'gift which confers a benefit on a person other than in his or her capacity as a member of the public or a section of the public will not fail if any such benefit is reasonable in all of the circumstances and is supplementary to, and necessary for the furtherance of the public benefit'.

The second part of this reads to me like a contradiction to the first part. Can anyone explain? Thanks!

Cherry_Angel

Does anyone have any Equity sample answers? Willing to swop for other materials!!!

hero82

i will never get me head around eu!!!hows everyone else getting on with it??the quicker these exams are over the better...

JCJCJC

parripassu wrote: »

Hi I am wondering if someone could explain the following provision, S3(3) of Charities Act which is supposed to mean that the Act allows 'greater flexibility' when construing the public benefit.

It outlines that a 'a gift will not be regarded as being for the public benefit unless it is intended to benefit the public or a section of the public'. The Act goes on to say that to provide a 'gift which confers a benefit on a person other than in his or her capacity as a member of the public or a section of the public will not fail if any such benefit is reasonable in all of the circumstances and is supplementary to, and necessary for the furtherance of the public benefit'.

The second part of this reads to me like a contradiction to the first part. Can anyone explain? Thanks!

Having a stab at it - if for example T left 100,000 in his will 'to the Parish Priest of Craggy Island for the upkeep of the graveyard and headstones on Craggy Island', it would be ok. Reading the definition that way, The benefit goes to (say) Fr Dougal as PP, ie other than in his capacity as a member of the public, and it is supplemental and necessary to the public benefit because somebody must hold and disburse the legacy. Does that make practical sense of it?

Caoileann

Anyone one else burning out? I cannot study anymore!!!!!!!

Hogzy

Caoileann wrote: »

Anyone one else burning out? I cannot study anymore!!!!!!!

Yes big time. Im absolutly wrecked. I had 3 exams in a row last week and im reaching the point now where im struggling to retain information. Its taking me twice as long to go over notes as it did last week before Tort. I cant wait for Monday to be over.

BroadwayBound

Caoileann wrote: »

Anyone one else burning out? I cannot study anymore!!!!!!!

100% with you on that one. My brain thinks I'm finished it's quite worrying! Still two to go

AnnAh1986

hero82 wrote: »

i will never get me head around eu!!!hows everyone else getting on with it??the quicker these exams are over the better...

I am finding it LONG. I have got so so much left to do. I am feeling quite tired though so might make it an early night and early morning. I do think with EU you can afford to leave out topics though which is good.

hero82

AnnAh1986 wrote: »

I am finding it LONG. I have got so so much left to do. I am feeling quite tired though so might make it an early night and early morning. I do think with EU you can afford to leave out topics though which is good.

ya me 2 im exhausted.!im covering pretty much everything except for the insititutions (which i hate!) and article 114.how bout you?

JCJCJC

Yep, I'm sh*t-sick of it now too, criminal law going in my eyes and promptly exiting my ears or someplace. Serious memory and retention problems.

sofakingood

I hope study is going well.

I only studied for contract, equity and criminal for this sitting and was planning on just scratching property.:rolleyes:
As contract was a disaster I will now have to try to pass property with only 1 night study.
Has anyone on here ever done something similar?

hero82

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yep, I'm sh*t-sick of it now too, criminal law going in my eyes and promptly exiting my ears or someplace. Serious memory and retention problems.

aw stop i know the feeling.ya would think i never opened a book for eu..its like my first time ever to read the stuff.arrghh!! there is still constitutional stuff floating around in my head....

AnnAh1986

hero82 wrote: »

ya me 2 im exhausted.!im covering pretty much everything except for the insititutions (which i hate!) and article 114.how bout you?

Well done to you. You are leaving out virtually nothing. I am leaving more than that - doing all but leaving Brussels reg, Free movement of capital and also Equality (I wanted to cover that tomorrow but I have too many other things to get clear in my head with free movements so will put the time into that instead). I am fairly confident I will still have 5 questions though, hopefully!! I am going to take a bit of a break to get my head straight I think.

bob_lob_law

sofakingood wrote: »

I hope study is going well.

I only studied for contract, equity and criminal for this sitting and was planning on just scratching property.:rolleyes:
As contract was a disaster I will now have to try to pass property with only 1 night study.
Has anyone on here ever done something similar?

Yeah my sister studied for two days and got it. I didn't give it much attention either and passed it no problem as well. Given the two succession questions and adverse possession (is it still a cert?), you should be able to give it a good shot.

Actually up until around 6pm the day before I had the days mixed up and was studying for contract when I had property the next day. Only realised I had the timetable mixed up when I came on here and still had to drive up to Dublin - 'mare.

sofakingood

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Yeah my sister studied for two days and got it. I didn't give it much attention either and passed it no problem as well. Given the two succession questions and adverse possession (is it still a cert?), you should be able to give it a good shot.

Actually up until around 6pm the day before I had the days mixed up and was studying for contract when I had property the next day. Only realised I had the timetable mixed up when I came on here and still had to drive up to Dublin - 'mare.

All hope not lost so, cheers

JLex

hero82 wrote: »

aw stop i know the feeling.ya would think i never opened a book for eu..its like my first time ever to read the stuff.arrghh!! there is still constitutional stuff floating around in my head....

studying criminal at the moment.......so sleeeepy zzzzzzzzzz
sitting outside for 6 minutes every 50 minutes helps me to stay awake. if you going to do the same make sure u put a winter jacket on ! so windy outside......

frustratedTC

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Yeah my sister studied for two days and got it. I didn't give it much attention either and passed it no problem as well. Given the two succession questions and adverse possession (is it still a cert?), you should be able to give it a good shot.

Actually up until around 6pm the day before I had the days mixed up and was studying for contract when I had property the next day. Only realised I had the timetable mixed up when I came on here and still had to drive up to Dublin - 'mare.

Was that just note learning, or did she full on start from scratch?

evercloserunion

Hi guys, just studying for equity at the moment but I don't have access to the manual or any past papers so I'm wondering whether I am preparing myself accurately. I'm planning on having covered:

- Specific performance
- Estoppel
- Injunctions
- Rescission (including mistake, undue influence, unconscionable bargain)
- Tracing
- Rectification
- Resulting trusts (including family property)
- Secret trusts
- Constructive trusts
- Charitable trusts
- Administration of trusts

Can anyone tell me if, judging by the past papers, this would cover me comfortably enough for five questions? Are there any topics in there that never come up, or are there any topics I haven't covered that always come up?

Cheers for the help!

ananas

My head is clogged at the minute, criminal is proving difficult to retain with all the feckin cases! I'm thinking about leaving out insanity as I don't have any updated info, just all the old cases and the 2006 act, am I being stupid in leaving it out? I've done basically all of the course besides.

bob_lob_law

frustratedTC wrote: »

Was that just note learning, or did she full on start from scratch?

She started from scratch. She was working full time and it was her fourth subject, I think it may have been when the timetable was better a few years ago, so she just gave it a go and got 50 on the nose.