FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

mrsuperclear

evercloserunion wrote: »

Enough of this property law talk, we're free! :P Can't wait to have my first beers in weeks.

Fixed

Strawberry Fields

Was I the only one scratching their head at the same sex marriage question, i'm an older student with an older manual really didn't know the act but gambled on getting all the spousal protection part. Anyway it's done now.

Hogzy

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back to sleep this thread goes for another few months. (Or until the results come out)

LawNerd2011

Congratulations on finishing everybody. I slept all today! I was just looking at the Independent Colleges Prep. Course starting in Nov. Does anybody know if it’s the same Lecturers who teach on the weekday course as the course that takes place at the weekend (Dublin Course 2)? Would appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks.

Eyespy

brian__foley wrote: »

I'll say something about this once the exams are done! No point adding stress right now!

Did you get a copy of the contract paper Brian? I was meant to upload and send you a pdf but have been sick with the flu since Tuesday. Wasn't able to dive up to Dublin on Thursday so didn't get my number on the fourth paper Am raging but the alternative was crash the car with the dizzy spells. So the only consolation is that I don't have to worry about the results and can start from scratch again. Will enjoy the rest of the month off and back to the books then.

Eyespy

Hi folks,

missed the exam so wondering if any kind souls might send me a copy in return for a copy of Constitutional/Equity and or Contract?

Many thanks

Eyespy

boomtown84

Eyespy wrote: »

Did you get a copy of the contract paper Brian? I was meant to upload and send you a pdf but have been sick with the flu since Tuesday. Wasn't able to dive up to Dublin on Thursday so didn't get my number on the fourth paper Am raging but the alternative was crash the car with the dizzy spells. So the only consolation is that I don't have to worry about the results and can start from scratch again. Will enjoy the rest of the month off and back to the books then.

:eek::eek::eek:
You poor thing!

Eyespy

boomtown84 wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:
You poor thing!

Ah thanks boomtown84, trying to look for the silver lining which is not having to wait around till late November/December to see if I passed or failed. I can horse back into them straight away. Fingers crossed for March How did you get on yourself?

brian__foley

Eyespy wrote: »

Did you get a copy of the contract paper Brian? I was meant to upload and send you a pdf but have been sick with the flu since Tuesday. Wasn't able to dive up to Dublin on Thursday so didn't get my number on the fourth paper Am raging but the alternative was crash the car with the dizzy spells. So the only consolation is that I don't have to worry about the results and can start from scratch again. Will enjoy the rest of the month off and back to the books then.

Yes, I did. Honestly, it seemed like a "dream" paper to me. Taking the essays first,

Q5 repeated the theme of the last few papers of examining remedies by reference to particular sub-topics in half questions. The duty to mitigate was examined recently and penalty clauses is something that has not been examined, but was really the only "sub-topic" left. This should have been a very easy question to get good marks in. In particular, I've been harping on for a few sessions now about the relation between penalty clauses and high interest provisions and Truck and Machinery Sales etc.

Q6 was a very basic essay on exemption clauses. I've always said that if you see this in a problem question, my advise was to stay away. However, I've also said, if its a do-able essay...do it. Again, I'm pleased here, because (see previous post on this), I've explained before that exemption clauses are about much more than "incorporation by notice" and good students would have known about statutory controls in the Unfair Terms Regulations, the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 and so on.

Q7(a) was a basic "reform" essay on formalities. No problems there.

Q7(b) was a recurring question about the "relationship" between consideration and promissory estoppel. That was a previous favorite of the examiner and we did it to death in class, and I think I even outlined an answer to this exact question at the one-day courses.

Q8 picked up, again, on a theme in the exam being to move to misrepresentation in the sense of a vitiating factor rather than as layman's language for a "term" of a contract. This would have been a dream question as well.

So, of the essays, I really couldn't see anything more straight forward being asked. The lesson is, again, you can't leave areas out of the course if you want a relatively pleasant exam experience.

As regards the problems, the same themes recur - mixing issues, in particular. Again, this is something that has been so obvious on the past exams, I don't really think its possible to be upset about it.

Q1 dealt with tenders, as well as certainty in the guise of a duty to negotiate. Questions as regards the status of the €10,000.00 would be raised, and restitutionary returns would be commented on by the best students. Knowledge of Triatic would, it seems, have finally paid off and knowledge of the foreign case-law in the GCD manual would have paid off. This question buttresses the old "mirror" theory of the paper given that March 2011 examined auctions which would be in the same general area of books, texts as tenders. Straight-forward question, again, if the course had been covered.

Q2 wasn't about penalty clauses (sure they were an essay later on), but about Williams v Roffey. That, itself, is unusual given that Q7(b) as per previous reports would have called for a discussion of Williams. The issue between Charles and Pat would seem to require a discussion of consideration in line with Williams. The issue between Charles and Sinead would require discussion of privity given there is no contract obvious between Sinead and Pat.

Q3 is about undue influence and unconscionability. This would appear to be a very straight forward question and, indeed, is based on the kind of facts that one would usually use to explain undue influence itself. There would also be a need to discussion Non Est Factum here and potentially (but not really) some slight discussion of why mistake would not be relevant could be a good idea.

Q4 raises frustration issues and capacity points. Again, the "dream" facts are given in that you are told the once-minor is now 18 and so the issues crystallise. Again, this would be a dream question.

Overall, the paper repeated basically all the issues that have been arising for the last few papers. Offer and acceptance, consideration, estoppel, remedies, exclusion clauses, misrepresentation etc.

Further, whereas no-one can be sure if the papers are set at the same time, I always advise for the Sept sitting that you should be able to do the previous exam inside out. If you had of been able to do the March paper inside out you would have done offer and acceptance (in particular the areas of auctions and, thus, tenders), exclusion clauses, illegality, frustration, consideration (and you would have prepared the exact question which arose at 7(a) since it was word for word on Q5 in March 11), remedies with special reference to the "two parter" type question, privity and mistake. It wouldn't have given you a perfect "mirror" answer, but being able to do the March 11 paper would have given a massive reward for Sept 11, in particular given that Q5 and 7(a) were identical.

More support for the notion that predictions are silly. Educated assumptions about preferences and themes are better, together with simply doing the course!

evercloserunion

Thanks for your analysis Brian, I feel a bit more comfortable about the exam now, especially Q2. The words and phrases used did seem to suggest that we should talk about penalty clauses and maybe even remoteness, but they didn't seem relevant to me and time was short so I mainly talked about Roffey and privity.

One question though, what was the relevance of the fact that the minor had since turned 18 in Q4? I can't remember exactly my answer to that--mainly just talked about beneficial contracts of service or whatever--but I think I may have missed something there...

brian__foley

evercloserunion wrote: »

Thanks for your analysis Brian, I feel a bit more comfortable about the exam now, especially Q2. The words and phrases used did seem to suggest that we should talk about penalty clauses and maybe even remoteness, but they didn't seem relevant to me and time was short so I mainly talked about Roffey and privity.

One question though, what was the relevance of the fact that the minor had since turned 18 in Q4? I can't remember exactly my answer to that--mainly just talked about beneficial contracts of service or whatever--but I think I may have missed something there...

Re Q2, yes...but remember that avoiding a penalty clause has been stated as one possible obviation of a disbenefit. That was the purpose of that fact.

Re Q4, because if the minor is of age, then it limits the possible relevance of the Infant's Relief Act, 1874 and limits the possibility of making mistake on that ground. I didn't see it as relevant, but its the give-away fact that stops one making mistakes.

donners87

hey, would anyone have a copy of the Criminal, Property and Contract papers? sitting them in march and would love to see what came up

Chet Zar

Hi guys,

I posted another thread on this but was advised to post here instead Be great to get your opinions and expertise on the below!

I'm considering training to be a solicitor and taking the FE-1s in March. Have a few questions:

-As regards preparing for the exams, who do people recommend studying with? Figure Griffith College are pretty popular and have a good rep, but how about say Independent College? How are the lecturers in each? The latter is far better for me location-wise, and it looks like they have lots of top students/prize-winners too.

-I am not currently working full-time, but am starting to do freelance work in another field (doing law would be a complete career change for me). How do people find juggling work with study...I guess I'd have an advantage in that I have some savings and wouldn't necessarily need to work full or even part-time - just continue working freelance here and there. This would free me up to focus on preparing for the exams practically exclusively - which would be a big advantage I'm hoping. Out of interest do most people preparing for the exams work full-time or not?

Cheers

Charlie D

Hi everybody, hope everybody is enjoying a relaxing week.

I am planning on sitting constitutional and tort next time and would love some advice on what books people would advise using or any tips on approaching these subjects? Cheers.

JCJCJC

Chet Zar wrote: »

Hi guys,

I posted another thread on this but was advised to post here instead Be great to get your opinions and expertise on the below!

I'm considering training to be a solicitor and taking the FE-1s in March. Have a few questions:

-As regards preparing for the exams, who do people recommend studying with? Figure Griffith College are pretty popular and have a good rep, but how about say Independent College? How are the lecturers in each? The latter is far better for me location-wise, and it looks like they have lots of top students/prize-winners too.

-I am not currently working full-time, but am starting to do freelance work in another field (doing law would be a complete career change for me). How do people find juggling work with study...I guess I'd have an advantage in that I have some savings and wouldn't necessarily need to work full or even part-time - just continue working freelance here and there. This would free me up to focus on preparing for the exams practically exclusively - which would be a big advantage I'm hoping. Out of interest do most people preparing for the exams work full-time or not?

Cheers

In the interests of strict fairness, I must point out that representatives of some of the preparatory colleges are frequent and valued contributors to the discussion here. It would be grossly disrespectful to them to give a direct answer to the question you have asked, albeit innocently as a new member here, and you are welcome. The representatives I am referring to have freely lent their expertise as eminent practising lawyers to all of us, whether we are customers of their schools or not.

The FE1s take a lot of study, and a few attempts isn't unusual. If you have done a law degree and retained it well, you have a head-start, but there is a different focus to these exams than that which pertains in some of the universities at least. Get some old exam papers from the law society and see how you'd feel about the standard.

Read back through the board to get opinion on various courses and remember that the www is a river of knowledge, wide but very shallow mostly.

Good luck, keep reading this board and you'll get in to our ways and get to know who's who, it is friendly and helpful and you are very welcome. It'll quieten down until about a month before the exams because we had a sitting only last week.

JC

Chet Zar

JCJCJC wrote: »

In the interests of strict fairness, I must point out that representatives of some of the preparatory colleges are frequent and valued contributors to the discussion here. It would be grossly disrespectful to them to give a direct answer to the question you have asked, albeit innocently as a new member here, and you are welcome. The representatives I am referring to have freely lent their expertise as eminent practising lawyers to all of us, whether we are customers of their schools or not.

Oh right, that's cool that they contribute...sounds like I might be spending quite a bit of time on here if I do go ahead with this!

JCJCJC wrote: »

The FE1s take a lot of study, and a few attempts isn't unusual. If you have done a law degree and retained it well, you have a head-start, but there is a different focus to these exams than that which pertains in some of the universities at least. Get some old exam papers from the law society and see how you'd feel about the standard.

As I said this would be a complete career change for me. I have a degree in languages and also a Master's degree, along with approx eight years work experience in Marketing, so I've been around the block so to speak. Hopefully that will stand to me, being a bit older than your average trainee (although there prob isn't an 'average' considering the spread of ages - guess I mean I'm not straight out of college ) Do you reckon I'll find it a lot tougher not having a Law degree and being totally new to it?

Read back through the board to get opinion on various courses and remember that the www is a river of knowledge, wide but very shallow mostly.

JCJCJC wrote: »

Good luck, keep reading this board and you'll get in to our ways and get to know who's who, it is friendly and helpful and you are very welcome. It'll quieten down until about a month before the exams because we had a sitting only last week.

JC

Cheers for the welcome! Essentially, I haven't decided for sure on this yet, that'll happen over the next few weeks. It's actually a toss-up between heading to Australia in the New Year for a year or two and continuing in my present career/job area over there, or embarking on this big career change. And possibly heading to Oz once I qualify! Or London would also appeal....

JCJCJC

Chet Zar wrote:

As I said this would be a complete career change for me. I have a degree in languages and also a Master's degree, along with approx eight years work experience in Marketing, so I've been around the block so to speak. Hopefully that will stand to me, being a bit older than your average trainee

Well, you know what study means then and you will be able to write in a good style of formal English which law requires, language is the tool of the trade. French and Latin words and phrases appear all over the law, so a comprehension of those will help you to remember them.

The general view is that some subjects compliment each other when studied together, particularly equity, contract and tort, and perhaps company. You must sit four exams in your first sitting and pass three to start clocking up scores. Some people find it easier to aim for three and sacrifice the fourth the first time. That leads to tactical choices. Company is a huge subject, criminal is considered to be the smallest syllabus. So criminal might be a better fourth if you feel you'd get four or more - it certainly can be done.

Not having a law degree means hard work, first to assimilate how law is learnt and then to learn it. My recc to you would be to do courses in a prep college because you are so long out of college yourself. Their websites will give you all the pricing info and study options.

Don't worry about your age. People prefer old lawyers who look like they've already seen and heard everything. Start browsing BMW catalogues to motivate yourself ;-)

JC

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

In the interests of strict fairness, I must point out that representatives of some of the preparatory colleges are frequent and valued contributors to the discussion here. It would be grossly disrespectful to them to give a direct answer to the question you have asked, albeit innocently as a new member here, and you are welcome. The representatives I am referring to have freely lent their expertise as eminent practising lawyers to all of us, whether we are customers of their schools or not.

No it wouldn't! Honestly, post away...sure there's loads of posts on that topic already here. People can make their own minds up. Can't have one person's presence inhibiting free flow of ideas!

colonel1

UberStressed wrote: »

I thought that the will was valid, just not the amendment to it no? Then rules of intestacy for the rest of his money that was not willed to anyone?
Overall, was happy with the paper, avoided the co-ownership even though had been hoping the topic would come up, too much going on in it and didn't have the time to go through it - Done the Janet and Mildred problem Q instead - what did people think? Did Janet have a claim on the house and did her taking of Mildreds money amount to satisfaction of some of her share on intestacy?
So relieved to be done(for now)!

Ah yes, I spent last night going through the question in my head and I should have put in revocation etc, but I only had 30 minutes to do the last 2 questions (my fault entirely), so it was so rushed ' tis no wonder I made mistakes. Hopefully enough to pass

Chet Zar

brian__foley wrote: »

No it wouldn't! Honestly, post away...sure there's loads of posts on that topic already here. People can make their own minds up. Can't have one person's presence inhibiting free flow of ideas!

From the horse's mouth :-)

I'm definitely interested in hearing people's opinion's on the lecturers in each institute (Griffith and Independent). In the name of free speech and all, plus not least the fact I'll be parting company with approx €3k to do it. I doubt anyone will be unduly harsh

colonel1

Chet Zar wrote: »

From the horse's mouth :-)

I'm definitely interested in hearing people's opinion's on the lecturers in each institute (Griffith and Independent). In the name of free speech and all, plus not least the fact I'll be parting company with approx €3k to do it. I doubt anyone will be unduly harsh

Ciaran Patton at Independent College is fantastic for criminal and Equity (especially for equity). Mark Cockerill for company is also excellent. He was teaching in Independent but has now gone to City Colleges. Val Corbett in Independent College has a very good reputation for tort. Before you part with any money, try and see a sample manual first. Bear in mind that doing a course is no guarantee of getting the FE1s either the first or any other time!!

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

No it wouldn't! Honestly, post away...sure there's loads of posts on that topic already here. People can make their own minds up. Can't have one person's presence inhibiting free flow of ideas!

Thanks Brian. Any chance that you'd give a quick run through the constitutional paper please?

corkgirl88

I did eu with griffith college and the lecturer was great.
I did'nt find the lecturers from griffith for tort and constitutional very good.

Strawberry Fields

I found the Tort lecturer in Griffith excellent and got a high mark. Wasn't as impressed with EU, but i suppose each to their own.

Rabeile31

I am sitting my first four next spring

so far i have chosen Contract, Criminal and Tort

I am between minds on whether to have EU or Equity as a fourth

Would Equity be better as a fourth with these particular 3 or would it make much of a difference choosing either

givingup

First time posting - apologies if I am interrupting anything.

If I could ask Brian Foley a question. You gave a great breakdown of the Contract paper. I failed contract for the second time. I am just not able to understand the questions and in your post you stated that you covered one of the questions at "the one-day course".

What one day course is this. At this stage, I really need help with Contract, or I will never pass it.

Many thnaks.

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Thanks Brian. Any chance that you'd give a quick run through the constitutional paper please?

When I get a chance! From what I've read here though, people won't like it.

JCJCJC

Rabeile31 wrote: »

I am sitting my first four next spring

so far i have chosen Contract, Criminal and Tort

I am between minds on whether to have EU or Equity as a fourth

Would Equity be better as a fourth with these particular 3 or would it make much of a difference choosing either

I would say Equity, because the concepts come into equitable remedies in tort and contract. neither Equity nor EU make any difference to Criminal. You would then be left with EU and Criminal - a huge syllabus and the most compact one, good for study time management.

JC

JCJCJC

givingup wrote: »

First time posting - apologies if I am interrupting anything.

If I could ask Brian Foley a question. You gave a great breakdown of the Contract paper. I failed contract for the second time. I am just not able to understand the questions and in your post you stated that you covered one of the questions at "the one-day course".

What one day course is this. At this stage, I really need help with Contract, or I will never pass it.

Many thnaks.

Brian means the GCD one-day revision courses. I've done several, and I think they are very good.

JC

Hogzy

brian__foley wrote: »

When I get a chance! From what I've read here though, people won't like it.

I have been going over this paper in my head for the last few weeks. Iv failed it so many times before. I need to know if i was correct in my approaches to the questions. It will soften the impact of receiving the results if i know 100% what the questions were focusing on.