FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Jicked

Hogzy wrote: »

Dont really know. I was in the same boat as you for Tort but i showed and stayed for the 45mins. In the rule book i got in the post it says you must SIT the exams. And it actually says it in bold so i interpreted it literally as that.
Dont think anyone has an official answer to it, i asked the same Q a week ago but not no definitive answer so i just went in!

well if she's doing the other 7 then there's no problem with her only 'sitting' 7. Your exam results will just have ABSENT beside constitutional, and be scored on the rest.

Mshellster

Found company quite tough, thought he could have asked that s.205 question in a nicer way I messed up really badly on that and couple of others so doubt I passed. Thought I had a fairly good knowledge of the course but found alot of the big topics didn't come up at all. Didn't like all the problem questions beings in so many parts either, was tricky time wise but hopefully next week goes better! Also hoping they aren't making the papers any harder or I'm in trouble!

Hottness

Hey everyone,

So, this is what I plan to have got completely done for Friday.
Equity and Doctrine of Notice,
Fee Simple is the only one of the Estates I've covered,
Registered and Unreg Land,
Succession,
Co-Ownership,
Family Property,
Licenses,
Landlord and Tenant,
Covenants,
Easements,
Judgment Mortgages,
Adverse Possession.

Covering as much of the reform bill 2009 as possible but I think I'll just have a few sections. Got hammered in this last sitting. Does anyone have any thoughts on anything else I should cover?

Pat.Kenny

brian__foley wrote: »

My view on it is that whereas it has appeared relevant on occasion to part of a question (except back in 2005 where there were entire questions), the amount of "learning" one has to do in relation to relatively dry Statutory Instruments makes the time committment somewhat less than efficient when compared to the time you could spend knowing mistake, frustration, discharge, formation, privity, illegality and void contracts in more detail. I'd say that 95% of the time, the student who put the time they could have put into consumer into, say, reading the LRC recommendations on privity would have been far better rewarded.

It could be on the exam, just like anything could be on the exam, but if you were making choices this late, it would be fairly to say it is one are to be given less priority to others.

I have a pretty dry computer and research based weekend ahead of me - upshot being I'll be at desk most of the time and will keep this board open most of the time if there are any substantive contract related issues people need any guidance on.

Brian

Hi Brian,

This is probably quite a stupid question at this point but I'm wondering if there's any useful techniques for studying contract in particular? I don't know what it is but of all the subjects I find it next to impossible to remember stuff for it or focus properly, not having half as much trouble with some of the way longer ones like constitutional. Any tricks of the trade or is it just basically a case of knuckling down and persevering with it!?

Thanks

JCJCJC

Hottness wrote: »

Hey everyone,


Covering as much of the reform bill 2009 as possible but I think I'll just have a few sections.

Hope that's a typo, and that you know it's an Act now:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13018

I'm taking the approach of being ready to answer a question framed along the lines of ...outline the significant changes to land law contained in the act yadda-yadda, and discuss the rationale for same...

So I have about eight of the major changes picked out in the hope that I'll remember six-ish anyway and take it from there, what else could they ask?

JC

Hottness

JCJCJC wrote: »

Hope that's a typo, and that you know it's an Act now:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13018

I'm taking the approach of being ready to answer a question framed along the lines of ...outline the significant changes to land law contained in the act yadda-yadda, and discuss the rationale for same...

So I have about eight of the major changes picked out in the hope that I'll remember six-ish anyway and take it from there, what else could they ask?

JC

I've just being going by the Griffith manual and covered the topics as they appear in that. I printed off the explanatory memorandum and took what I can from it. But seeing as the syllabus has not changed, I'm assuming we'll have to know the manual inside out as well as the new provisions in the Reform Bill?

JCJCJC

Hottness wrote: »

I've just being going by the Griffith manual and covered the topics as they appear in that. I printed off the explanatory memorandum and took what I can from it. But seeing as the syllabus has not changed, I'm assuming we'll have to know the manual inside out as well as the new provisions in the Reform Bill?

Well if you know the G's manual well you are very well fixed in any event, but I would not be happy for you to concentrate on the BILL as against the act, there were a few changes made as it went through the oireachtas so the Act differs in detail here and there. If you are working off the explanatory memorandum you should be ok, but get out of the habit of calling it a Bill please!!!

If you're studying adverse possession in any depth, be aware of the final outcome of Pye v Graham which became Pye v UK, and note that according to this barristers chambers' website, Beaulane v Palmer is being re-opened as a result:
http://www.no5.com/news-publications/publications/still-squatting-in-a-quagmire

see the very last paragraph.

Irish AP law seems to be settled for the time being anyway by Feehan v Leamy, good articles on it by Niall Buckley SC in the journals if you have access to them.

JC

brian__foley

Hottness wrote: »

I've just being going by the Griffith manual and covered the topics as they appear in that. I printed off the explanatory memorandum and took what I can from it. But seeing as the syllabus has not changed, I'm assuming we'll have to know the manual inside out as well as the new provisions in the Reform Bill?

Just so you know, the manual was supplemented throughout the course with relevant material on the Act (i.e. it's not a Bill any more!). Whether or not its on the syllabus, I still would think that its important to appreciate its effect.

brian__foley

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Hi Brian,

This is probably quite a stupid question at this point but I'm wondering if there's any useful techniques for studying contract in particular? I don't know what it is but of all the subjects I find it next to impossible to remember stuff for it or focus properly, not having half as much trouble with some of the way longer ones like constitutional. Any tricks of the trade or is it just basically a case of knuckling down and persevering with it!?

Thanks

Nope. No tricks. No useful techniques save that which you already know and use and which work for you. It's law, plain and simple and you just have know it. I don't think there is any substantive difference between understanding a case concerning contract and a case concerning the constitution unless there is an anterior difficulty in understanding the point of the cases in contract (but not having the same problem in constitutional law). Maybe that's the problem - you're not seeing the individual cases in the scheme of a wider doctrine / area / heading?

There are of course techniques for study that people really have to "find their own voice" in respect of. However, since you seem fine with constitutional law, it doens't appear that law per se is the problem...just contract law, and I don't have an answer for you there.

And the trade is knuckling down and perservering! There are no (valid and ethically reliable) short cuts in the practice of law, and there should be none in the study of law either!

lucilou

I am really dreading const on tues...I just think its gona be one of them papers....I just cant get ny head round freedom of expression so think im just gona cover the privacy angle and the art 34.1 as he goes on and on bout it in the reports....hoping due course of law is up this time....Also does education ever come up as a q on its own?? I knw it is sometimes incorporated into family but time is not on my side so thinkn bout just covern the important cases as in Sinnott and O'Donoghue....oh my brain is in over drive....:rolleyes:

brian__foley

lucilou wrote: »

I am really dreading const on tues...I just think its gona be one of them papers....I just cant get ny head round freedom of expression so think im just gona cover the privacy angle and the art 34.1 as he goes on and on bout it in the reports....hoping due course of law is up this time....Also does education ever come up as a q on its own?? I knw it is sometimes incorporated into family but time is not on my side so thinkn bout just covern the important cases as in Sinnott and O'Donoghue....oh my brain is in over drive....

Seriously, there is very little to get your head around. It's largely about concepts rather than in depth knowledge of a given case.

1. It's protected by Article 40.6 and by Article 10
2. Historically Irish courts haven't really had much to say about it
3. When they did (Murphy / Colgan) they tended to apply quite deferential proportionality analysis
4. Only recently have the Courts started to give a "strong" Irish approach with

(a) the statement in Mahon v Post Publications that "The right of freedom of expression extends the same protection to worthless, prurient and meretricious publication as it does to worthy, serious and socially valuable works" and discussion of prior restraint
(b) the recognition that public interest speech can outweigh the right to one's good name - Monica Leech
(c) the reasonably strong affirmation that in some cases the media's duties (not just rights) under article 10 (treated as nearly directly effective in Ireland) to protect sources may outweigh other rights (Irish Times)

These are all pretty recent cases, and its not worth looking at the topic unless you have a working knowledge of what they were about.

On top of that, then you need the bullet point ability to say what the ECHR jurisprudence values and protects - search back in the thread for one I put up ages ago.

Generally, a free expression question is hard to phrase without bringing in some discussion of balancing rights - i.e. one just doesn't really "raise" the right in the kinds of cases that are currently being litigated without bumping into the counter-right especially privacy.

Basically, just think about how would apply freedom of expression thought to the whole John Terry super-injunction issue and if you can see how the issues apply and have something to say (citing the recent above Irish cases) you should be ok.

Now come on West Ham!

Brian

lucilou

Thanks Brian....!! I just never liked it i touched on alot of that stuff with defamation in tort which was of zero use to me in the exam...Im hoping ill be safe stickn to..

- Const interp
- Trial in due course
- Family/Education
- Unenum rights
- Fund Rights
- The President/A.general
- Sep of powers
- Private Property


Prob forgot a few I just hope its enough..last exam n i dont wana screw it up...!!!!

brian__foley

lucilou wrote: »

Thanks Brian....!! I just never liked it i touched on alot of that stuff with defamation in tort which was of zero use to me in the exam...Im hoping ill be safe stickn to..

- Const interp
- Trial in due course
- Family/Education
- Unenum rights
- Fund Rights
- The President/A.general
- Sep of powers
- Private Property


Prob forgot a few I just hope its enough..last exam n i dont wana screw it up...!!!!

It's not a tip, but it would pretty annoying if the protection of the unborn (i.e. procedural lacune - Tysiac / embryo issues), freedom of association issues and/or same sex coupled / natural father's rights were on the exam and one hadn't looked at them.

lucilou

I am covering the right to associate and natural fathers rights come under family so should be covered with that...am staying away from right to life of unborn just not something i want to cover so if i havent enough covered then so be it....I am physically incapable of learning anymore new topics...I just have a fear of const even though i enjoyed it in college....I just dont understand why 50 % is sometime so unatainable with the Law Society there would be a time in college i would have been distraught getting 50!!! The whole area of fe1s is shrouded in mystery!!!

randomchild

Hey lads just a quick question on Quia Timet injunctions. Every time i sit down to write a sample answer on the subject, my structure just falls to pieces! At the moment i try to:

1/ Explain the law on interlocutory injunctions
2/ Explain its application in Szabo
3/ Explain the law on perpetual injunctions

However, I either seem to spend far too long going through too much material and go over the time limit I set myself or I get in a muddle linking campus oil to szabo and it becomes a near incomprehensible mess... Is there any advice you guys can give. I would especially be grateful considering it could come up this year!

Thanks in advance!

Heya Randomchild,

Sounds like you're running into difficulty because you are trying to provide a 'perfect' answer. You'll only confuse yourself becuase there isn't one. Especially in that Szabo judgment. Try it a bit a bit more like: it could be looked at this way, or it could be looked at this other way, but, in any way you look at it this will be relevant, and this will be relevant.

I dunno if thats any help but an ability to express a multiplicity of counterveiling interpretations is a strength in legal argumentation.

In any sense, sounds like you have enough for that question anyway

JCJCJC

randomchild wrote: »

Hey lads just a quick question on Quia Timet injunctions. Every time i sit down to write a sample answer on the subject, my structure just falls to pieces! At the moment i try to:

1/ Explain the law on interlocutory injunctions
2/ Explain its application in Szabo
3/ Explain the law on perpetual injunctions

Thanks in advance!

Subject to considerable improvement by Dr. Brian Foley BL and others no doubt:
Interlocutory simply means both sides are in court, as against ex-parte when only one side applies for an injunction. For example, if you heard that a radio station was about to air a show that defamed you in the coming week, you could make an ex-parte application immediately to the court to halt them. The court might give you an order* for a short time, days or even hours. You serve your order on the other side, and then an interlocutory hearing takes place. They appear normally with representation and the two of you make your arguments. If the injunction is upheld, it's then an interlocutory injunction because both sides were heard. It stays in place pending the full hearing of the action. If the court orders a permanent stay on the broadcast at the hearing, that's your perpetual injunction.
Interlocutory refers to the hearing, prepetual refers to the duration of the final decision.

Hope that helps.

*subject to the usual tests in equity - fair issue to be tried (established by your grounding affidavit), undertaking as to costs, damages not an appropriate remedy, equitable principles - clean hands, he who seeks equity must do equity etc.

I'm sure Brian will express that in much better language!

JC

lougem

pauline.mcc wrote: »

You have NO IDEA how happy i am that i read this--- everyone going on about the three trespass torts and her neg- i wrote about a paragragh on it and spent rest talking re her liability!! very happy u guys did same as me. Also, randomly- question 2.... Car accident... what??? Didn't do it cos had no idea what it was asking.
Random, evil paper. Where were the lovely defamation, nuisance, rylands and nervous shock questions?!! Nasty paper in my opinion. Then again, they all are!

I could be wrong, but I thought that question was asking about the Standard of Care. The guy accepted the duty of care as a third party, and the crux of the question is whether or not he reached the standard of care, which he did not. The fact that he was a medical student would increase his liab, as the Reasonable Man, even a layman, would know that moving someone etc...
Everyone I've spoken to seems to think the Q was ab Causation, which I dont agree with. Why would they ask 2 ab causation? What does everyone else think?

McLawin

I thought it was a Standard of Care question too pointing to the utility of his actions, usual non-liability for his actions, possible novus actus of the closed hospital. I also think it was probably no harm to dispel the issue of the professional standard of care (since he was a student). I began to answer that question but for some reason, I just thought I could be wrong so I abandoned it and answered something else instead—that flaming trespass one, I think. I'm pretty sure now that is what the question was though. Damn

pauline.mcc

really couln't make sense of no2 but even when reviewing older papers i just had a mental block on all standard of care Qs, as in I never once spotted the issue in any past paper... was wondering whether there was liability for Road Users coming into in (which I hadn't covered) so stayed well away from it

And on a slightly optimistic note- anyone of the opinion that the markers will have pity on us cos of crazy papers avoiding all the 'predictable' Q's... the thought of that is the only glimmer of hope i have at the moment so please don't slate me for askng!!!

Ps best of luck guys cos i think we all need it! Heading back equity books now, the countdown to freedom and the 29th of March is on!

Christor

Hi there, can anyone please explain the following . . . when it's an internal tax it is paid at the same marketing stage and is triggered by the same chargeable event. What is the "marketing stage" and the "chargeable event"? Thanks!

2ndtimer

you are nearly right there, just slightly muddled.

Two of the qualifications of being considered an internal tax are if the chargable event takes place at the same time and same marketing stage- Co frutta

For example, hypothetically; irish beer and german beer are both charged Duty when they are sold to wholesalers. The criteria is met.

If German beer was charged when it was landed in Ireland it would be at a different time. The Irish beer would therefore enjoy an advantage by being able to be stored longer etc without attaching the charge until it was sold on to wholesalers. You can see that the chargable event is different and will not be saved by the art 110 TFEU (art 90 EC) saver

Marketing stage I am going to put my hands up and say im not 100% sure, so other input welcome. However I would imagine that this refers to stage of production and availability for sale rather than anything related to product lifecycle.

For example consider beef, if all beef packed and ready to purchase in supermarket was charged only when on sale to public then marketing stage is the same. If foreign beef, in its unbutchered state ( i.e carcass with meat) is charged on import this would amount to a charge equivalent to excise duty and in breach of art 30 TFEU (25 EC).

The criteria to meet the internal tax saver in the former art 90 was discussed in Denkavit and CSN v UK.

Christor

Thanks for that 2nd timer - I'll let it sink in and I'm sure it'll make sense at some point!

Mshellster

Are there any chapters that could be left out of Equity without completely shooting oneself in the foot?! I'm in way over my head at this point with Equity haven't done a whole lot for it it's just one of those subjects I started very last minute and I've alot of ground to cover today/tonight! Really need to cut down topics for it...what are people's thoughts on leaving out small stuff like estoppel, satisfaction etc, rectification? Thought it might be best to focus on the bigger topics?

Thanks a mil in advance guys and help/advice would be seriously appreciated!

lucilou

Mshellster wrote: »

Are there any chapters that could be left out of Equity without completely shooting oneself in the foot?! I'm in way over my head at this point with Equity haven't done a whole lot for it it's just one of those subjects I started very last minute and I've alot of ground to cover today/tonight! Really need to cut down topics for it...what are people's thoughts on leaving out small stuff like estoppel, satisfaction etc, rectification? Thought it might be best to focus on the bigger topics?

Thanks a mil in advance guys and help/advice would be seriously appreciated!


I think you should make sure u have the easier topics covered like charitable/resulting trusts, donation mortis causa,3 certainties, spec performance, undue influence??

I did equity in october n found it togh put passed..you will be fine the amount of info that came back to me in tort on thrus i couldnt believe it....

Mshellster

Thanks for that. Ya defo covering RT, charitable trusts, trustees, tracing, injunctions, maxims, recission, purpose trusts, strong v bird, cy-pres and such but just have a bad feeling I'll leaving myself with not enough questions in the exam!

femstar123

Hi, just wondering if thers's been a recent unified test used for granting a perpetual quia timet injunction.

I have got an old manual and according to it, the tests were;
the boswell test, the Independent Newspapers test and the Hooper v Rogers test
And it was suggested in that manual that one wld hv 2 apply all of them in a question!

Is this still d case? pls help....

BlueSkinny

Ok guys its nearly upon us ! Constitutional on tuesday and im freaking out !!!

all of you on this site tell me what are the tips floating around??
the course is simply too long in my opinion !! is there anything that anyone can predict with somesort of certainty ??

also another point from reading these posts alot of you are resitting these exams for teh fourth of fifth time, can I ask what to the majority of you do in the interim . between exams and such and also what age are all of you guys gonna be when you finally make it to full qualification!

Also Im considering offering myself as an unpaid trainee just so that I can get in somewhere , am I mad ? or is this the only availible option to me during this economic period??

stewbacca

Bit confused about this topic in general. Does the new land act changing anything regarding voluntary conveyance or transfer of land?

layzee

lougem wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I thought that question was asking about the Standard of Care. The guy accepted the duty of care as a third party, and the crux of the question is whether or not he reached the standard of care, which he did not. The fact that he was a medical student would increase his liab, as the Reasonable Man, even a layman, would know that moving someone etc...
Everyone I've spoken to seems to think the Q was ab Causation, which I dont agree with. Why would they ask 2 ab causation? What does everyone else think?

That discussion about the trespass torts was referring to question 7, about ellen and phillip, not the medical student question!