FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

chops018

RebelScorned wrote: »

i wouldn't panic too much- i actually asked Ross Aylward from Griffith about how examiners mark and in his educated opinion, he said you get marks for an attempt the way you do in maths in the leaving cert, even if you come to the wrong conclusion, you may pick up marks on the way for an attempt, cases you mentioned etc. I don't think you would get an automatic zero for coming to wrong conclusion the way you would if you just wrote about entirely wrong topic. Don't fret, i remember in tort last october i spent a whole question rambling about chickens and eggs and if pellets that affected their digestive systems actually affected eggs etc- i thought i crashed and burned on that but still passed exam well. I'm sure examiners don't skip to the conclusion first when they are correcting!

Thanks for that! I'm bit calmer about it now, I'm sure there is lot's of differing conclusions.. But as doing said, forget about it now, it's done and I'll find out in a couple of months.. Putting my mind on equity now!

RebelScorned

chops018 wrote: »

Thanks for that! I'm bit calmer about it now, I'm sure there is lot's of differing conclusions.. But as doing said, forget about it now, it's done and I'll find out in a couple of months.. Putting my mind on equity now!

no bother at all, dust yourself off now, have a few hours R&R and get your cram on again later when you're sufficiently exercised and fed, best of luck with equity

JCJCJC

How so Joe wrote: »

Anybody feeling charitable enough to post up those predictions for Equity?

City College's night-before notes are on their website for all subjects, fair play to them, or as Hogzy might say, fair bowl to them ;-). They are excellent summary notes.

UberStressed

I think done the same as everyone else re Q1 and thinking it was intestacy at the end, but I discussed everything else properly (I hope) so fingers crossed?

For question 3 - AP, did anyone mention the validity of the lease to Joe? Surely Jimmy didn't have the legal capacity to grant a lease as he had sold the land and hadn't got AP, but is there any other relevance of this? Other than the time continuing to run?.. As for the poster who mentioned the structures, I don't think there is any significance of this, other than similiar to putting up a fence or laying chippings as in the cases like Considine?

For the rights of access/light/view in Q7, what is the story for a right to a view? I hadn't a clue and took a guess at there was no right?

wez99950

JCJCJC wrote: »

City College's night-before notes are on their website for all subjects, fair play to them, or as Hogzy might say, fair bowl to them ;-). They are excellent summary notes.

I can't seem to find them on their website - would you be able to post the link if you don't mind JC

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

I pointed out that it might end with intestacy and said what would happen if it did, however I did note that the courts usually try their best not to end with intestacy. I can't remember but I think I forgot the solicitor tore up the new will so I said that if it wasn't destroyed properly then the courts may give it effect. Didn't mention if it was destroyed properly or not, forgot he tore it up to be honest, I just mentioned intestacy and that if not destroyed properly the old will can have effect. Didn't delve into it too much though. Concentrated on s. 77 and 78 and the possibility of the proper provision for Tracey under s. 117 if she ends up getting nothing. Only spent a bit of time on the revocation/intestacy part, hopefully I'll get marks for bringing it up, although I'm questioning my conclusion a bit now....

I haven't seen the question obviously, but it sounds from what's being said that Cheese v Lovejoy was relevant - torn-up will still good; and Ld St Leonard /Earl Sugden's will - recited from memory? Only destruction/revocation exactly per the Act kills the will.

RebelScorned

wez99950 wrote: »

I can't seem to find them on their website - would you be able to post the link if you don't mind JC

here i have it to hand:

http://www.citycolleges.ie/2011/10/03/fe1-night-before-notes/

watching an enthralling video about secret trusts...

JCJCJC

wez99950 wrote: »

I can't seem to find them on their website - would you be able to post the link if you don't mind JC

Here, and just google - city college night before notes.

LSH

JCJCJC wrote: »

Here, and just google - city college night before notes.

Hey

I think they are the same notes that were handed out in Oct.
I might be wrong!.

LSH

JCJCJC

LSH wrote: »

Hey

I think they are the same notes that were handed out in Oct.
I might be wrong!.

LSH

Perhaps, but so? they're notes, not forecasts.

LSH

JCJCJC wrote: »

Perhaps, but so? they're notes, not forecasts.

Ur right, I was just giving people a heads up!!

Hogzy

Does anyone know if Promissory Estoppel has ever arisen on the Equity Paper. I have been going through passed papers and they all seem to be problem Q's on Proprietary Estoppel.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

I haven't seen the question obviously, but it sounds from what's being said that Cheese v Lovejoy was relevant - torn-up will still good; and Ld St Leonard /Earl Sugden's will - recited from memory? Only destruction/revocation exactly per the Act kills the will.

I mentioned Cheese .v. Lovejoy when discussion revocation, had a good knowledge of the issues and discussed them well just think that the conclusion may not have been correct due to a slip up with the facts, hoping they don't penalise too much.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

Perhaps, but so? they're notes, not forecasts.

Yes the one's they gave out today were different alright. I posted up a few pages back the predictions they put on the handout they gave today if you want a look! But as people are saying, don't rely on them, especially for equity.

Ned_led16

No family property which was a favorite
No treasure trove
Complex succession
Complex adverse possession

Didnt want to do a q on easements but had to - A dominant owner cannot claim a diminution of light due the replacing of old windows with new windows – Scott v Goulding Properties Ltd. , and neither can he claim a right to light through the light coming to the windows of his building which first passes through parts of the servient owner’s building.

chops018

Ned_led16 wrote: »

No family property which was a favorite
No treasure trove
Complex succession
Complex adverse possession

Didnt want to do a q on easements but had to - A dominant owner cannot claim a diminution of light due the replacing of old windows with new windows – Scott v Goulding Properties Ltd. , and neither can he claim a right to light through the light coming to the windows of his building which first passes through parts of the servient owner’s building.

For the right to light I argued that he could claim an easement via prescription (as it started in 1982 to now, which is 30 years) once the re ellenborough elements were satisfied..

Caoileann

Am I right in thinking that Formal and Evidentiary Requirements generally doesn't mix? I don't have exam papers to check for myself but just deciding what topics would be the safest to leave out based on how they mix!

So far I have covered:
1. Offer and Acceptance
2. Promissory Estoppel
3. Privity
4. Mistake
5. Discharge of contracts
6. Remedies
7. Consideration
8. Misrepresentation
9. Contractual Terms
10. Undue Influence
11. Capacity to Contract
12. Exemption Clauses


Undecided on whether to cover:
Formal Requirements
Consumer
Duress
Illegal contracts with void
ICLR

Will probably just have the time to cover one or two more. I hope this is enough!

noseriously

Hang on, I thought Promissory Estoppel only came up in contract? Cos it creates a contractual obligation?

Mojo22

Hogzy wrote: »

Does anyone know if Promissory Estoppel has ever arisen on the Equity Paper. I have been going through passed papers and they all seem to be problem Q's on Proprietary Estoppel.

Promissory Estoppel never comes up in Equity as its believed to be more of a contractual document, whereas Propretary estoppel is more equity related.

RandolphEsq

Caoileann wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that Formal and Evidentiary Requirements generally doesn't mix? I don't have exam papers to check for myself but just deciding what topics would be the safest to leave out based on how they mix!

So far I have covered:
1. Offer and Acceptance
2. Promissory Estoppel
3. Privity
4. Mistake
5. Discharge of contracts
6. Remedies
7. Consideration
8. Misrepresentation
9. Contractual Terms
10. Undue Influence
11. Capacity to Contract
12. Exemption Clauses


Undecided on whether to cover:
Formal Requirements
Consumer
Duress
Illegal contracts with void
ICLR

Will probably just have the time to cover one or two more. I hope this is enough!

I too have not done consumer and illegal contracts. Have not done consumer as it is mainly legislation so I don't feel there is a whole lot to get out of being able to answer a question on it, particularly as there is no guarantee I will have to do a question on it. As for illegal contracts, just didn't feel it was vital to know that chapter.

sorchauna

Hi,

Does anybody have a contract grid that I could exchange for company, consitutional, property or eu?


Thanks!

RebelScorned

Caoileann wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that Formal and Evidentiary Requirements generally doesn't mix? I don't have exam papers to check for myself but just deciding what topics would be the safest to leave out based on how they mix!

So far I have covered:
1. Offer and Acceptance
2. Promissory Estoppel
3. Privity
4. Mistake
5. Discharge of contracts
6. Remedies
7. Consideration
8. Misrepresentation
9. Contractual Terms
10. Undue Influence
11. Capacity to Contract
12. Exemption Clauses


Undecided on whether to cover:
Formal Requirements
Consumer
Duress
Illegal contracts with void
ICLR

Will probably just have the time to cover one or two more. I hope this is enough!

out of those possibilities, i would probably do illegal just in case it came up in a problem question, it's quite straightforward, and maybe have a few cases on duress, esp. economic duress. I'm leaving out consumer too, the one question that came up a while back was a whopper asking about European consumer law, i mean who has time to go through the intricacies of how the french and german like to protect their consumers!

FOOKED

Hey,

I am just wondering if anyone would mind sharing a contract exam grid as I'm trying to cut down on what to revise befor the exam- tried covering way too much for company and completely blanked! Argh!


Thanks

SeaFlat

Why are people saying they accidentally answered proprietary estoppel where it was in fact licences?

Is proprietary estoppel not another way of say estoppel licence??

Same cases in the property manual as the equity manual?

I used cases: Re JR, Re Basham, Smyth v Halpin, Ramsden v Dyson, Cullen v Cullen and I used Hughes v Metropolitan Railways to explain the origin of estoppel.

I also mentioned contractual-licence: errington v errington, binions v evans

And then I wrote one line on right of residence and mentioned Atkins and Atkins.

What else could you put in?

Caoileann

Thanks for the advice. Have decided on doing everything except ICLR, Agency, Consumer and Formal Requirements.. little nervous about cutting the last one but three exams next week no time!

Lorraine 24

Could anyone tell me what came up in last Octobers EU paper?

Mojo22

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I too have not done consumer and illegal contracts. Have not done consumer as it is mainly legislation so I don't feel there is a whole lot to get out of being able to answer a question on it, particularly as there is no guarantee I will have to do a question on it. As for illegal contracts, just didn't feel it was vital to know that chapter.

Just to let ya know that the new examiner likes consumer protection: pan european. Not saying it will appear on the exam but just be aware of it.

Ned_led16

A college indirectly tipped the following as - these were the hw questions for the duration of their course
-minor and non minor
-omission
-intention
-recklessness

then 6 combo questions: (main areas)
sex offence
theft
assault
complicity
inchohate
defences automatism/ duress

wez99950

Ned_led16 wrote: »

A college indirectly tipped the following as - these were the hw questions for the duration of their course
-minor and non minor
-omission
-intention
-recklessness

then 6 combo questions: (main areas)
sex offence
theft
assault
complicity
inchohate
defences automatism/ duress

Criminal would be the one exam where I wouldn't even look for tips! The questions are always mixed with everything under the sun and you're shooting yourself in then foot if you narrow down your topics.

My advice would be is to cover as many topics as you can rather than focusing on a few (the exception I did with the other exams ha!). From past experience and from talking to others, it's enough to identify an issue and have a couple of cases and then move on and identify the next issue. He mixes everything!

I remember when I did it some people left out a section of the course and it came up in 3 questions so be really careful! Just my 2 cents

Ned_led16

is that why there is a mass exodus to the toilet in criminal law exams - not saying people are cheating but adverse inferences may be drawn - or perhaps a coincidence that 10 times more people need the bathroom during criminal law exam!

I hope thats not the case - If so that really annoys me - when u dont have a law degree and its plainly obvious there are lots of people checking notes in the bathrooms - how can the non law grad compete against that!

Invigilators cant prevent that kind of cheating because - they cant check if u pull a tissue with notes from your pocket and flush it down the loo - but not a good start to become a solicitor though is it really!