FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

DeSourire

crystalmice wrote: »

The materials really are not clear on this, but I *think* the situation is that the owner of the property, even if its leased, takes over the finder if they had intent to control the property...if they didnt, then the finder takes; the occupying tenant doesnt take any priority...

Then again, and this is total speculation, I would wonder if some of the cases on finding actually do concern a lessee occupier as opposed to owner; for example, I would be surprised if BA actually owned the executive lounge in Parker; I would assume its more usual that airlines rent the space from the airport...and my notes refer to BA as the occupier rather than owner...but any materials I have read are totally silent on this issue so I have absolutely no idea and will probably play it safe by assuming only the actual owner of the property can have superior title to the finder (apart from the true owner obviously), and just hoping that the issue doesnt come up :P

btw, I also dont think you need to show up to an exam once you have 3 done

so basically, I am as confused as you :P

To ease your pain look at: Elwes v Brigg: Lessor gets it!

banterful

DeSourire wrote: »

crystalmice wrote: »

The materials really are not clear on this, but I *think* the situation is that the owner of the property, even if its leased, takes over the finder if they had intent to control the property...if they didnt, then the finder takes; the occupying tenant doesnt take any priority...

Then again, and this is total speculation, I would wonder if some of the cases on finding actually do concern a lessee occupier as opposed to owner; for example, I would be surprised if BA actually owned the executive lounge in Parker; I would assume its more usual that airlines rent the space from the airport...and my notes refer to BA as the occupier rather than owner...but any materials I have read are totally silent on this issue so I have absolutely no idea and will probably play it safe by assuming only the actual owner of the property can have superior title to the finder (apart from the true owner obviously), and just hoping that the issue doesnt come up :P

btw, I also dont think you need to show up to an exam once you have 3 done

so basically, I am as confused as you :P

To ease your pain look at: Elwes v Brigg: Lessor gets it!

Thanks - what if it's a 99-year lease though? Her exam reports continually say the occupier gets it but the lessor isn't really occupying if it's a long lease? Confused!

crystalmice

DeSourire wrote: »

To ease your pain look at: Elwes v Brigg: Lessor gets it!

Thats what I get for using very abbreviated notes and not reading cases
Thanks!

DeSourire

For anyone who is doing company in the future, get ur hands on sample papers-the questions are always very similar!

qz

Can I be so cheeky as to ask what came up in company today?

DeSourire

Q1 S205 better than exceptions to Foss- Essay Q
Q2 Corporate Authority- Ostensible Authority, RinT, Reg 6 of SI 163... Essay
Q3: Section 194, Section 29 & 31, Coommon Law duties (in a problem q)
Q4: Restriction- Problem Question
Q5: Transfer of Shares ( I think)
Q6: Floating Charge Essay
Q7: Consequences and Advantages of Incorporation
Q8: The Realisation of Corporate Assets: 2 scenarios.

banterful

Hi all,

Quick question re Oct 11 Q1 if anyone has it handy - still not quite clear on how it raises freedom of expression issues, which apparently it does - probably blatantly obvious but from what I've covered in freedom of expression I don't really see how putting a sign outside your house advertising your business & being restricted from doing so by a bye-law is really a restriction on one's freedom of expression...would have thought the much bigger issue there is right to livelihood.

Can anyone enlighten me as to which areas of freedom of expression one would focus on for that question?

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!

lbcoconut

Possibly a very petty question but if anyone can clear it up it would be great, is it our candidate number or ID number that is of importance?- (when writing it on the front of permitted legislation)

crystalmice

lbcoconut wrote: »

Possibly a very petty question but if anyone can clear it up it would be great, is it our candidate number or ID number that is of importance?- (when writing it on the front of permitted legislation)

Candidate number- thats whats on your desk in the hall, they need that to find you to give the legislation back

lbcoconut

crystalmice wrote: »

Candidate number- thats whats on your desk in the hall, they need that to find you to give the legislation back

haha thanks, that would make sense!

Hogzy

banterful wrote: »

Hi all,

Quick question re Oct 11 Q1 if anyone has it handy - still not quite clear on how it raises freedom of expression issues, which apparently it does - probably blatantly obvious but from what I've covered in freedom of expression I don't really see what putting a sign outside your house advertising your business & being restricted from doing so by a bye-law is really a restriction on one's freedom of expression...would have thought the much bigger issue there is right to livelihood.

Can anyone enlighten me as to which areas of freedom of expression one would focus on for that question?

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!

It touches on the case of Murphy v IRTC - ie, when can the state limit advertising. Advertising is a form of expression. Expression and communication are treated as an inseperable right according to Mahon v Post Publications and Irish Times v Ireland.

Thats what i think it is. I might be wrong.

banterful

Aha that does make sense thank you kindly Hogzy!

banterful

crystalmice wrote: »

Thats what I get for using very abbreviated notes and not reading cases
Thanks!

Sorry to be a pain guys but how does elwes v briggs clarify it? after looking it up in da londras and the manual & still not sure...

crystalmice

banterful wrote: »

Sorry to be a pain guys but how does elwes v briggs clarify it? after looking it up in da londras and the manual & still not sure...

Hmmm actually upon further reflection I think you're right, Elwes relates to property in the land as opposed to on the land so it actually doesnt answer the question...confused as ever! I dont think there is a clear answer with respect to items on leased land, not in any of the common materials we are all using anyways!

banterful

crystalmice wrote: »

banterful wrote: »

Sorry to be a pain guys but how does elwes v briggs clarify it? after looking it up in da londras and the manual & still not sure...

Hmmm actually upon further reflection I think you're right, Elwes relates to property in the land as opposed to on the land so it actually doesnt answer the question...confused as ever! I dont think there is a clear answer with respect to items on leased land, not in any of the common materials we are all using anyways!

Hmmm let's just hope it doesn't arise

Fe1erere

Hey there, for constitutional exam i'm covering;
1 Family
2 Unenumerated rights
3 Trial in due course of law
4 Separation of powers and judicial independence
5 AG
6 Property
7 Public Administration of Justice
8 War Powers
9 Habeus Corpus
10 Dail, Elections/Pro rep/privilege and cab con
11 Constitutional interpretation
12 Maj v Min Offences
13 Equality
14 Trial by Jury

Now i know it seems like enough, however, i can't help but think that i should include freedom of expression and abortion...? any easy topics to throw in there?

JLex

Fe1erere wrote: »

Hey there, for constitutional exam i'm covering;
1 Family
2 Unenumerated rights
3 Trial in due course of law
4 Separation of powers and judicial independence
5 AG
6 Property
7 Public Administration of Justice
8 War Powers
9 Habeus Corpus
10 Dail, Elections/Pro rep/privilege and cab con
11 Constitutional interpretation
12 Maj v Min Offences
13 Equality
14 Trial by Jury

Now i know it seems like enough, however, i can't help but think that i should include freedom of expression and abortion...? any easy topics to throw in there?

i would defo include expression very easy topic. may i ask what do you cover under public admin of justice? v confused by this topic.

Fe1erere

Its simple really, you have your exceptions (In camera and statute i.e. s.45 of Courts Act 1961), then cases including X v AG, Re Ansbacher 2002. Basically a constitutional imperative that justice is admin in public..
Yeah i think i'll gloss over expression while i have the time!!!

qz

Luas not expected to run between Connolly and Heuston until Friday or Monday.

chops018

I have succession done pretty well - would be able to recall cases for sections 77 and 78, would be able to deal with codicils and alterations, and revocations. Would also be able to deal with construction of a will and extrinsic evidence. Also have some knowledge on the Legal Right Share and the right of a child.

Just wondering on Intestacy, don't have it covered, should I get it done as it isn't too long or would the above be ok? Intestacy doesn't seem to come up that's why I never went over it. Wondering about it now though.

noseriously

I'd try to have at least a quick glance over it, most of it is just what's listed in the Act anyways. It'd be a mistake to leave it out, a lot of the problem questions ask to you "advise on the distribution of the estate" - if a gift fails, or the will is invalid, you'd need to know the rules on intestacy or you'd lose marks. Even just highlight it in your legislation, like I say, most of the rules are in there.

noseriously

In fact, flicking through my notes, I think basically everything you need to know is in the act - just highlight it and tab the section!

chops018

noseriously wrote: »

I'd try to have at least a quick glance over it, most of it is just what's listed in the Act anyways. It'd be a mistake to leave it out, a lot of the problem questions ask to you "advise on the distribution of the estate" - if a gift fails, or the will is invalid, you'd need to know the rules on intestacy or you'd lose marks. Even just highlight it in your legislation, like I say, most of the rules are in there.

Thanks, I'll highlight the provisions for it.

qz

Presumption of Constitutionality
Constitutional Interpretation
Locus Standi
Equality
Property Rights
Right to Earn a Livelihood
Religion
Electoral Process
Privacy and Freedom of Expression
Separation of Powers
Delegated Legislation
Attorney General
Due Process

Head is melted.

brian__foley

banterful wrote: »

Hi all,

Quick question re Oct 11 Q1 if anyone has it handy - still not quite clear on how it raises freedom of expression issues, which apparently it does - probably blatantly obvious but from what I've covered in freedom of expression I don't really see how putting a sign outside your house advertising your business & being restricted from doing so by a bye-law is really a restriction on one's freedom of expression...would have thought the much bigger issue there is right to livelihood.

Can anyone enlighten me as to which areas of freedom of expression one would focus on for that question?

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!

He wants to say "something". There is a law that stops him saying that "something"! Hence freedom of expression / the right to communicate is involved and a discussion of whether they are different anymore (think AG v Paperlink, Irish Times v Ireland, Murphy v IRTC)

You'd be considering whether or not the right extends in a particularly strong form to commercial speech rather than purely expressive speech (i.e. its not particularly valued in the US).

You'd be drawing analogies with Murphy v IRTC as to how limitations can be justified.

brian__foley

juliach wrote: »

i would defo include expression very easy topic. may i ask what do you cover under public admin of justice? v confused by this topic.

Article 34.1 requiring justice be administered in public / whether the courts have an ad hoc power to hold cases otherwise than in public outside of the legislatively prescribed permitted situations / if they do, in what circumstances can they exercise it etc

Its been asked a good few times.

Awfull Lawfull

Just wondering how people found Company today ?

JCJCJC

Just home now, found the paper ~ok~, the reliable bankers of borrowing, directors duties, restriction and incorporation came up. I got a few bulls-eyes in those which I'm pleased enough about, I had nothing like the whole course done. I found I could put case-law to the problems more easily that statute law.

Awfull Lawfull

JCJCJC wrote: »

Just home now, found the paper ~ok~, the reliable bankers of borrowing, directors duties, restriction and incorporation came up. I got a few bulls-eyes in those which I'm pleased enough about, I had nothing like the whole course done. I found I could put case-law to the problems more easily that statute law.

I found it tough to be honest... I did Ostensible authority,S205,Transfer of Shares and Restriction of Directors ( with only one case !) and only managed to start another question...Alot of what I had prepared did not come up so I was dissapointed,and therefore left with little choice.I obviously misjudged what to cover Oh well onwards and upwards to Equity...

JCJCJC

Awfull Lawfull wrote: »

I found it tough to be honest... I did Ostensible authority,S205,Transfer of Shares and Restriction of Directors ( with only one case !) and only managed to start another question...Alot of what I had prepared did not come up so I was dissapointed,and therefore left with little choice.I obviously misjudged what to cover Oh well onwards and upwards to Equity...

I thought the floating charges question was very loosely framed, I took it to be a write-all-you-know question and did that. Sean & Seamus and the sinking cruise ship just shows that these exams can be topical, thankfully I had restriction done to death and could recall the cases, USIT was a big help there.