FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Gibbonw2

Anyone kind enough to let me know the contract paper topics? Did she put her own style on it?

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

He's disagreeing with JC, who said it's very topical, the poster above said he doesn't think the paper that topical.. no need to get smart about things ! :P

Great question for the Autumn sitting - 'should the Council of State include former Taoisigh?' I don't mind being disagreed-with or not. I failed it the first time, altered my tactics accordingly and passed it the next. To each his own.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

Great question for the Autumn sitting - 'should the Council of State include former Taoisigh?' I don't mind being disagreed-with or not. I failed it the first time, altered my tactics accordingly and passed it the next. To each his own.

Haha! Excellent!

Ah I was only joking around and just trying to stir up the discussion between those two, need something to keep me amused on here till the results :P

Strawberry Fields

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Anyone kind enough to let me know the contract paper topics? Did she put her own style on it?

4 problems and four essays. Essays on exclusion clauses, damages, duress or undue influence, Utmost good faith in insurance contracts or EU law effect on Irish law. Mixed bag of problems.

Gibbonw2

godeas16 wrote: »

4 problems and four essays. Essays on exclusion clauses, damages, duress or undue influence, Utmost good faith in insurance contracts or EU law effect on Irish law. Mixed bag of problems.

essays sound horrible, particularly the last 2,

Strawberry Fields

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

essays sound horrible, particularly the last 2,

Grogan v Cooke 1812, if there be a fair and bona fide consideration the court will not enter minutely into it, and see that it is full and ample.
Discuss the relationship between this principle and undue influe.

Even though I studied it was like wtf

ananas

This thread has been so helpful for me when studying for these pains in the arses. Well done to everyone for finishing and a big thanks to all those who put up hints, recent case law, exam technique etc. I think I may have failed company as I made an arse out of 2 questions but trying to forget until may.

Lets pick up with our lives where we left off. I have a very dear friend, Gordons Gin, whom I havr neglected since Christmas. We're overdue a catch up:D

chops018

godeas16 wrote: »

Grogan v Cooke 1812, if there be a fair and bona fide consideration the court will not enter minutely into it, and see that it is full and ample.
Discuss the relationship between this principle and undue influe.

Even though I studied it was like wtf

I did that question too as I had prepared undue influence because of the overlap with it in equity.. I kind of discussed all the areas (even though I know they don't like that) but focused on how the courts are will presume undue influence in certain cases, and how the other party will have to rebut the presumption. Brought in third parties aswell. Said that shows evidence of how the courts don't "enter minutely into a fair and bona fide transaction" and that they will use the above in making sure it was a "full and ample" transaction, argued stuff like that.

brian__foley

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Anyone kind enough to let me know the contract paper topics? Did she put her own style on it?

As I see it, it was pretty fine. Two particular things emerged. First, the 4+4 style continued. Second, the "advise X in relation to Y and Z" or "answer (a) and (b) continued.

Regarding the essays, they really would have rewarded paying some attention to the past papers / trends and recurring matters.

Question 5 was a nicely divided question on exclusion clauses with a basic half essay on incorporation and a basic half essay on exclusion clauses and fundamental breach. You can't do exclusion clauses without knowing about Clayton love etc, so that would have been fine.

Question 6 continued the very observable trend of examining damages with regard to particular sub-issues and these particular sub-issues (mitigate and penalty clauses) had been asked quite recently.

Question 7 continued two trends with a welcome optional (a) or (b). Question (a) asked about the impact of EU law on Irish contract. Again, we all know that this can be asked and its a question for students as to whether they want to spend time learning about EU directives and so on. The syllabus expressly says you need to know EU law regarding consumer law only, and it will be interesting to see the report here. Option (b) was straight-forward and continued the trend of putting "misrepresentation" on the paper in a clearer sense than before. Something that direction on insurance, however, had not been on the paper for a long, long time.

Question 8 was straight-forward, but it seems to have thrown some people. The statement provided was to the effect that the law doesn't second guess the adequacy of consideration and you were asked to discuss the relationship of that with undue influence. That's straight-forward in that whereas (a) the law may hold a contract legally formed where Kevin buys a field off old-man Mick for €1, (b) equity may have something to say about it. Like in so many areas, equity picks up the slack where common law rules could, if left alone, create mischief. Again, like the "consideration and promissory estoppel" question that came up a few times before, it just needs a bit of reflection to get the "link" which leads to the material you know. The essay on economic duress seemed fine also.

brian__foley

godeas16 wrote: »

Grogan v Cooke 1812, if there be a fair and bona fide consideration the court will not enter minutely into it, and see that it is full and ample.
Discuss the relationship between this principle and undue influe.

Even though I studied it was like wtf

It just means that you're being asked to discuss how, on the one hand the law says "we don't care if you only pay a penny for an acre" but on the other hand the law says "the fact you only paid a penny for an acre raises suspicion".

coco13

sammey wrote: »

What was your exact position on this - had you studied company law prior to the FE 1 say as a degree module or did you achieve this mark with zero company law knowledge using absolutely nothing other than the IC lectures and manual - it is an impressive mark

Sorry..I did company law in college as part of my law degree but graduated from that in 2003 so it was like staring the subject all over again studying for it this time round. I can assure you that that I am no whizz when it comes to studying and it certainly doesn't come easy but it's nice to see that if you concentrate on the manual and not another thing outside of it that a very respectable mark is achievable. I've found with every exam I have sat there has never been a need to look outside the prep manuals. The only thing I would flag going forward is the EU Law exam and the areas of Institutions and The General Principles of EU Law... The questions here seems to be becoming so general in their nature that they are starting to require some reading outside of the manual.
Anyways hope this is of some help.

GusherING

brian__foley wrote: »

It just means that you're being asked to discuss how, on the one hand the law says "we don't care if you only pay a penny for an acre" but on the other hand the law says "the fact you only paid a penny for an acre raises suspicion".

Relieved to read that post. I 'm glad I thought like that too and wrote an essay along those lines touching on freedom to contract, equity v common law and a general explanation of the categories of undue influence.

brian__foley

DaleWinton wrote: »

I honestly reckon he sticks a load of topics in a hat and picks them out at random so as there can be no discernible pattern.

With all due respect, its as predictable as any other paper with probably more clear patterns than others. There seem to be so many myths about this subject! I just can't understand where the perception that this exam is "random" is coming from.

1. The examiner routinely exams privacy and writes about it. Privacy was on the exam. Not only that, but the particular area examined drew on media privacy / expression issues which have been all over the exam, and reflect the examiners research interests etc.
2. The exam routinely asks about the separation of powers; there was a clear separation of powers essay.
3. The exam routinely asks about the administration of justice in public. There it was again.
4. Time and time again there are right to earn a livelihood / proportionality / property questions and there they are again.
5. Equally, unconstitutionally obtained evidence has a good pedigree as do Article 38.1 questions generally.
6. Also, Article 26 has been examined before and there it is again.
7. The case note question referred to cases which are the bread and butter of the subject.

Frankly, the paper reflects a very normal and reasonable spread of a typical undergraduate constitutional law course - separation of powers, presidential / article 26 issues / basic rights focusing on property / proportionality and privacy and Article 38.1. And you add to that the nuancing themes that are emerging in current litigation (e.g. the input of fair process in "non-traditional" areas and so on) (See Question 1, and note that Dellway had been previously asked in the case-note putting it "right on the agenda").

How is any of that random?

Strawberry Fields

brian__foley wrote: »

It just means that you're being asked to discuss how, on the one hand the law says "we don't care if you only pay a penny for an acre" but on the other hand the law says "the fact you only paid a penny for an acre raises suspicion".

Ok thanks, I did the duress part of that question anyway as I found it more straight forward. Would you like to post what the main issues in the problems were?

Stimorol

JCJCJC wrote: »

I find EU a lot worse than Constitutional, I have Constitutional passed. I think to pass constitutional with EC you have to 'play the man' as much as 'play the ball'. Read his examiners' reports very carefully and note what they reveal about his his attitudes and views. He doesn't seem to like prep-college manual knowledge only, and he repeatedly stresses the need to read actual cases. Given that it is known from his public lectures which cases he thinks are important it isn't a big task to find them on bailii and read them. I would also say read at least a few chapters of a standard textbook like, for example, Casey's one, and be able to quote some opinions from it rather than just facts, so that you can show the wide reading you've done - same goes for journal articles, especially his own. He also stresses that he doesn't compose questions from grids, or repeat patterns, so analysing his past papers for such patterns doesn't work as well as it does in other areas. The best I can say is he keeps it topical - the themes of the recent cases appear on his papers, eg fair procedures, cpo's etc., but focus on the constitutional aspects only.

Dang, that's quite a challenge. Thanks for the advice!

Caoileann

Devastating to see I could have written two of those contract essays if I had known what they meant I thought insurance contracts related to consumer protection which I hadn't covered and I didn't understand the Undue Influence question!

sammey

coco13 wrote: »

Sorry..I did company law in college as part of my law degree but graduated from that in 2003 so it was like staring the subject all over again studying for it this time round. I can assure you that that I am no whizz when it comes to studying and it certainly doesn't come easy but it's nice to see that if you concentrate on the manual and not another thing outside of it that a very respectable mark is achievable. I've found with every exam I have sat there has never been a need to look outside the prep manuals. The only thing I would flag going forward is the EU Law exam and the areas of Institutions and The General Principles of EU Law... The questions here seems to be becoming so general in their nature that they are starting to require some reading outside of the manual.
Anyways hope this is of some help.

Thanks for the reply.

Gibbonw2

What book would be best recommended for Tort for the fe1s? Would also be interested in purchasing recent notes/exam answers in the next month for tort and contract if anyone is interested.

JCJCJC

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

What book would be best recommended for Tort for the fe1s? Would also be interested in purchasing recent notes/exam answers in the next month for tort and contract if anyone is interested.

Eoin Quill is your examiner and he has a recent edition of his own book, so that's one. McMahon & Binchy is a big book, but easy to read and utterly comprehensive. During the summer you'll pick up English ones on ebay.co.uk for pennies, they are a useful resource to have. Obviously the manuals from the prep colleges will be directly relevant to the FE1s, there's another thread here for wheeling and dealing - there might not be much action until after the results come out. It's also worth doing a search on adverts.ie for 'law books', there are a few there always, you might get a tort book there. The nutshells and nutcases books are cheap and useful, as is the 'make that grade' series.

Gibbonw2

Cheers buddy

Darren07

Hey Guys, new to this boards business! Just sat 5 FE 1's this March (2012). Does anybody have any idea when results are out????? Cheers.

chops018

Darren07 wrote: »

Hey Guys, new to this boards business! Just sat 5 FE 1's this March (2012). Does anybody have any idea when results are out????? Cheers.

I've heard it's in or around the end of May.

Darren07

Cheers Chops:)

DeSourire

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone did the City College Courses in any of the subjects this time round? They are cheaper than the other 2 and would be paying myself so would prefer to do the cheap courses. (I'm not tight-just broke!)

In March I did one in Griffith and was really happy with it but I also did a course in Independent and I was really unhappy with it.

I also think the past exam quetion sample answers were really beneficial and I heard that in City Colleges they only do them for certain courses and not all of them.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks a mil!

GusherING

DeSourire wrote: »

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone did the City College Courses in any of the subjects this time round? They are cheaper than the other 2 and would be paying myself so would prefer to do the cheap courses. (I'm not tight-just broke!)

In March I did one in Griffith and was really happy with it but I also did a course in Independent and I was really unhappy with it.

I also think the past exam quetion sample answers were really beneficial and I heard that in City Colleges they only do them for certain courses and not all of them.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks a mil!

I did three of the City College Courses last month and I have to say they were very useful and good value.

I did them as I hadn't studied the subjects I was sitting for quite some time prior to January when I decided to go for the FE1s in March.

Unlike a lot of people who have friends who have sat the FE1s and know lots about the probability of what examiners like to ask questions on, I didn't really know much and the course helped a lot in this regard.

The subjects covered everything in just the right amount of detail. I found that the subjects in tort were really useful. I hadn't given too much attention to intentional torts beforehand, but I really studied them on foot of the advice given and I would have been really stuck in the exam if I had not done this.

That's just my two cents but I would go again given the price and advice.

Charlie D

I have done courses with all three colleges now. I have to agree that the sample answers from Griffith are very useful. I have sat all eight and done a course for all eight now and I found the company and property courses very good with griffith. I think the equity course was equally good. I had no problems with EU but I wasn't a fan of the EU manual with griffith, I found it confusing and it would recommend reading Craig and De Burca instead.

I did tort with independent and I thought they were very good but again there were only a few sample answers but I still would recommend the course for tort.

I did one course with city and while the lecturer was really nice and helpful, i'm not sure whether I would recommend it or not. I think they offer more of a personal touch but i'm unsure about the material and whether it was perhaps too concise and we didn't seem to deal with important recent developments.

These are only my own personal opinions and people may disagree.

Lawfull

I have made the decision and I am going for them!

I know it's very early but I hear some of the prep courses are starting next month.

I have been advised that Company, Contract, Criminal and Constitutional are topics to be done together.

Anyone any advice on this?

I am also looking for manuals to get a head start.

Thanks a mill.

NoQuarter

Don't do contract without doing equity. Good crossover of remedies.

hession.law

My preference if I was to do them again, with the benefit of hindsight would be;

Contract, Equity, Property, Tort.

Constitutional, EU, Company, Criminal.

Lawfull

NoQuarter wrote: »

Don't do contract without doing equity. Good crossover of remedies.

Thanks for that.