FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

All you can do is monitor the Griffiths website and the'll put up the info in due course. Brian Foley's tips and forecasts came in very well on contract law this time.

JC

Wonderful! Nice to know. But they were not forecasts! The continuing focus on proprietary estoppel is getting interesting as I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with contract law. Anyway. GCD courses would be starting around the first week of June.

Jev/N

NickDrake wrote: »

Well there is no distiction made in Irish law between promissory and prop estoppel. So you could argue both I would say.

Well *technically*, proprietary estoppel isn't on the exam syllabus for contract law - this especially came to the fore when she asked a compare and contrast question a few years ago

Either way, it's on the equity course which was extremely handy for me when it came up in 2 questions last year

coco13

JCJCJC wrote: »

All you can do is monitor the Griffiths website and the'll put up the info in due course. Brian Foley's tips and forecasts came in very well on contract law this time.

JC

brian__foley wrote: »

Wonderful! Nice to know. But they were not forecasts! The continuing focus on proprietary estoppel is getting interesting as I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with contract law. Anyway. GCD courses would be starting around the first week of June.

Cheers Brian.. Will try and enjoy the interim break and will be seeing you then so.

brian__foley

NickDrake wrote: »

Well there is no distiction made in Irish law between promissory and prop estoppel

I'm not sure about that, trying drafting a claim based on a promise unsupported by consideration in an area other than relating to land and see where it gets you!

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

Wonderful! Nice to know. But they were not forecasts! The continuing focus on proprietary estoppel is getting interesting as I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with contract law. Anyway. GCD courses would be starting around the first week of June.

I stand corrected Brian, I suppose they're better than forecasts ;-) I sent the paper to JM in your office, got an out-of-office bounce, hope you get it anyway. Maybe you'd give us your obs here when you've read it?

Thanks

JC

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

I stand corrected Brian, I suppose they're better than forecasts ;-) I sent the paper to JM in your office, got an out-of-office bounce, hope you get it anyway. Maybe you'd give us your obs here when you've read it?

Thanks

JC

Ah, ok she is out today. Send it to me directly if you want...

32minutes

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yes, not too bad I thought, just letting my head get back to normal now for a while. Couldn't for the life of me think of Bannerman for the sulphur and hops question so I left it alone, but most of my other cases stayed in my head - did capacity of minors and managed them all, horse, cufflinks, boat, waistcoat, car, legal advice etc!. I'll scan the paper soon and send it to Dr Brian Foley and we'll see what he thinks in due course maybe.
What did people think about the prop estoppel question - did it only arise for the latter few years from when the purported promise was made, giving Jimmy only an interest commensurate with his inputs from that point to Peter's death? That was the line I took anyhow.

JC

I have to say that while addressed the whole prop/prom/unified estoppel situation I didnt address the issue of interests realised from the estoppel although the doctrine only does arise that after the promise and reliance are found so it seems in line that he would only be entitled to interests commensurate. Although I believe there are a few cases (in australia) that have given expectation based relief.

In the end i just stated that he had a very strong case for prop estoppel overall and given the signifcant detriment from the very beginning and that regardless of the timeframes he would be entitled to at least a very large share in the house. Gillet v Holt

NickDrake

Thats the thing. It is not on the syllabus so how can she ask it? I answered it with both prom and prop anyway.

She seems very interested in prop estoppel so it should be added to the syllabus and not asked at all really.

I wonder did the fact the the man was depressed mean capacity would be due a little one line mention,

Most of his arguement seem to be based around verbal evidence as well.

I though it was a fair paper.

NUIG_FiannaFail

lads we have plenty of lawyers in this country - don't mind wasting yer times doing fe1s and do a proper degree like commerce or medicine would ye.

best of luck all the same!

E

NickDrake

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

lads we have plenty of lawyers in this country - don't mind wasting yer times doing fe1s and do a proper degree like commerce or medicine would ye.

best of luck all the same!

E

Fianna Fail??? Scum .

Commerce is shot in this country as well is case you havent realised.

You will get some abuse for your comment.

Most people are just getting them out of the way now while they can as they can't get a job in anything else because of Fianna fail.

PS I also have a degree in Commerce as well as my Law degree.

2ndtimer

Can anyone think of a discreet subject to study at this late stage? Covered usual big topics and am doing mergers at the min.

marko-polo

I might be dipping a little too much into equity here but I thought that remedies under prop are quite limited. So if Jimmy was to suceed he would get the house and land conveyed to him or a right to reside for life.

Mr. Incognito

Hi there,

My housemate did this today and I had a look over the paper. Brian I was watching a few of your lectures over her shoulder (kinda hard not to when she has them blasting day in day out) and Kudos man, wish I had you around when I was doing them. Loled at your fantasy football reference.

My 2 cent.

Q1 Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Revocation. Interesting to note he was a manager not owner so small point on whether it was an unauthorised offer.

Q2. Unilaterial Mistake and mistaken identity- face to face dealings would not invalidate. Void verses voidable. I think the contract is voidable. Getting away from Ingram V Little which was an exception.

Q3. This question, quite simply is a mess. Prop Estoppel, consideration (briefly) and Undue Influence. Not a blood kin so no presumption but just after wives death would raise a question as to the reliance. Also question on inducement. i.e Was Jimmy asked to help or did he volunteer? Also was he aware of the will. Destruction is a moot point imo as will not affect effect of estoppel. Advising the siblings- SETTLE lol. I had a good chat with my housemate on this one and you are trying to force estoppel against someone who is dead? Has this happened? I know that in McCurran? A mother induced
her son to transfer the farm but is all the rest of the caselaw relevant? I think Brian is going to come back with some interesting points on this one.

Q4. Hops and sulphur- there's a case on that somewhere. Exclusion clause and limitation clause combined? Weird. Mere representation or term. Not as familiar with the case law but seems to be a bit of a mess too.

Q5. Innocent party may terminate a contract. Bone of contention in our house. Repudiatory breach- Athlone council fine. But innocent parties can terminate a contract under - illegality, mistake, misrepresentation, self induced frustration off the top of my head. Was she really asking for all this? Once a breach goes to the root of a contract then an innocent party has the right to terminate in my book. Very broad on what seems like a simple question on first glance.

Q6. Contracts by minors- straightforward enough really. Benefit outweighing detriment etc. Infants relief act. Law reform recomendations etc. Came up before

Q7. Illegal on public policy AND severance of illegal contract and enforcement of remainder. Is that not a contradiction? If a contract is illegal it is void- what remainder? An illegal term maybe, but illegal contract? Typo?

Q8. Mechanisms for benefit of third party not a party to contract. Wow, Tort, Equity, Agency, collateral contracts. Denning and his love in with equity here in a big way. OR Damages in contract law and limitation of recoverable loss. That seems okay to me. Limited to expenditure actually incurred where it is uncertain etc.

I think it's a grand paper but it's notable for it's absences really.

JCJCJC

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

lads we have plenty of lawyers in this country - don't mind wasting yer times doing fe1s and do a proper degree like commerce or medicine would ye.

best of luck all the same!

E

As long as we have you lads we'll have a growing tribunal industry for the foreseeable future, and look at all the work you've created in insolvency, repossession, company failures, bankrupcy etc? There's a very bright future out there for lawyers.

JC

Jicked

2ndtimer wrote: »

Can anyone think of a discreet subject to study at this late stage? Covered usual big topics and am doing mergers at the min.

Not sure if the anullment procedure counts as discrete, but I reckon we'll see either that or Prelim. References.

marko-polo

It didn't seem like the farmer made any direct assurances or representation. I am merely going on what was said in CD v JDF.

louloubell690

Has anyone any recommendations on what to cover for property, im sitting here in abit of a panic as i cant seem to recall anything!

what topics would you advise i do or leave out?

Amre17

JCJCJC wrote: »

As long as we have you lads we'll have a growing tribunal industry for the foreseeable future, and look at all the work you've created in insolvency, repossession, company failures, bankrupcy etc? There's a very bright future out there for lawyers.

JC

Well said JC..

While I have you can I bother you to explain what was the outcome of JA Pye? you mentioned before you knew your stuff on adverse poss.. also what is the effect of successfully establishing an ap claim..parliamentary conveyance or extinguished title? keep reading conflicting info or maybe my brains just fried at this stage..

many thanks in advance..

good luck tomorrow

coco13

Hi lou lou,

In much the same boat myself... At this stage am picking a few topics and takin a chance on it:

Succession (Obviously)
Ad Possession
Cohabitees
Reg/Unreg Land

What you covering?

louloubell690 wrote: »

Has anyone any recommendations on what to cover for property, im sitting here in abit of a panic as i cant seem to recall anything!

what topics would you advise i do or leave out?

louloubell690

I was thinking exactly the same, with the addition of settled land.....

im just now trying to decide whether to bother studying for property as i feel unlikely to pass it and to concentrate on criminal in the hope that ive passed equity and contract! cant seem to make my mind up!

JCJCJC

Amre17 wrote: »

Well said JC..

While I have you can I bother you to explain what was the outcome of JA Pye? you mentioned before you knew your stuff on adverse poss.. also what is the effect of successfully establishing an ap claim..parliamentary conveyance or extinguished title? keep reading conflicting info or maybe my brains just fried at this stage..

many thanks in advance..

good luck tomorrow

Ah sure we have to have a bit of fun. I forgot to mention all the criminal work from all the unemployed lads from East of the Rhine...go to any district court and you'll see it. Where the real easy money presently lies is in translations, they get E180 a pop and it only takes five minutes usually, I've seen some with ten cases in a morning, and they hop in the car and get to another court after lunch where the foreign cases are held for them.

Pye v Graham - last word here:
The decision in Pye v Graham [ 2002 ] UKHL 30, [ 2003 ] 1 AC 419 was the subject of an appeal by Pye Ltd (who lost land worth an estimated £10M to adverse possessors) to the European Court of Human Rights. In J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v UK (App no 44302/02) [ 2005 ] ECHR it was held that the Limitation Act 1980 as it applied to registered land was in breach of Protocol 1, Article 1, which would have entitled Pye Ltd to compensation from the UK government. However, the UK referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights and, by a majority, the decision of the original Chamber was reversed.

That case flip-flopped this way and that at every successive stage like playing Xs and Os. It's still a sort-of open question what title the squatter gets. If he's on freehold land, he gets the fee simple as you will expect. But, if he's on leasehold, has the reversionary interest any role, since it was only the leasehold interest he squatted on. And if there are covenants in the lease, they seem to remain enforceable against the dispossessed leaseholder. The Parliamentary conveyance theory is not considered good any more, neither is the future use approach. Feehan v Leamy is the Irish law on it at the moment, also Dunne v CIE.

The decision in Feehan has been criticised (legalese for 'is slightly bonkers') because the judge said the title map runs to the centre of the road, the paper owner stopped his car every so often and looked in over the ditch, so he exercised all the enjoyment and control he felt like and therefore wasn't dispossessed. That could mean that future cases on old roads will run one way, and on newer roads where the County Council acquired the land under the road by conveyance or CPO and registered it, Feehan v Leamy won't do and the case will be argued at least the other way. So if you look in over the ditch off the M50 you won't be in the same happy position, basically.

If you want a bit of material on it, PM me.

JC

n0_bunny

louloubell690 wrote: »

I was thinking exactly the same, with the addition of settled land.....

im just now trying to decide whether to bother studying for property as i feel unlikely to pass it and to concentrate on criminal in the hope that ive passed equity and contract! cant seem to make my mind up!

im a betting man, i would defo say that the areas not changed by the new act have a good chance of appearing

at least throw Family Property into the mix

go for property

Amre17

Thanking you much for that JC..

My material on Pye only brought me up to the EHCR decision but I had a feeling it didnt stop there, thanks for clearing that up..

Onwards we go..

Good luck..

brian__foley

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hi there,
Q7. Illegal on public policy AND severance of illegal contract and enforcement of remainder. Is that not a contradiction? If a contract is illegal it is void- what remainder? An illegal term maybe, but illegal contract? Typo?

Not a typo I think, but just another manifestation of the previously arising issue that the examiner somehow believes illegal contracts are the same thing as void contracts. At least it was foreseeable as there is a track record on this. But you're dead right, the quesiton, in my view anyway, doesn't make a lost of sense. If you told your senior partner you can get your client out of the "illegal" term keep the contract in place you'd be laughed out of the office. Illegality hits the whole contract, but void terms (not illegal) can be "blue pencilled out". Sure as Robert Clark points out, “…void contracts, do not produce the cataclysmic effects that attend illegal contracts.” Contract Law in Ireland (6th ed., 2008), at 399

There are considerable issues which one can raise about how the contract exams at times appear to somehow misunderstand contract law itself. That may be the test, but one doesn't see that in the reports!

Seems like a reasonably ok paper, but this proprietary estoppel point is getting silly. If I could understand how it had anything to do with contract I might feel different but it is as relevant as, say, the human rights implications for contract law of the ECHR, but that's not on the syllabus and not fair game, so why prop. estoppel when it is expressly on the equity syllabus?

Will be interesting to see whether the examiner thinks that the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 is relevant to the exclusion clause question. It probably is (i.e implied terms - s.13 / and the rules on excluding liability) but in the past questions have clearly raised SOG issues, but same being curiously absent in the reports. For that question, in practice, you wouldn't go near arguing "its a term" in the Oscar Chess sense. You'd be better arguing it was a sale by description and get the s.13 implied term in. This would be the second question set in the last few years that on a real-life viewpoint, would appear to be dealable with by the SOG, but dealt with in the exam report on basic first principles. The knock on effect is that the exclusion clause may be examinable under the fair and reasonable test. It's for reasons like this I advise people to stay away from exclusion clause issues - its simply not clear what's being asked and actually knowing the law in detail could end up being a problem.

brian__foley

brian__foley wrote: »

It's for reasons like this I advise people to stay away from exclusion clause issues - its simply not clear what's being asked and actually knowing the law in detail could end up being a problem.

Yeah, I really got thrown at that point. Having written half a page on 'fair and reasonable' under the Act I said, hang on, thats not right, crossed a line through it and re-tacked. He's asked that exact question before so I'm unsure the motivation.

On the proprietary estoppel issue, I may be completely off the ball, but I get a notion from the past papers that he looks for an opinion on the fusion of law and equity. Do students know that some jurisdictions don't have consideration, how would that work? yadda yadda

brian__foley

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, I really got thrown at that point. Having written half a page on 'fair and reasonable' under the Act I said, hang on, thats not right, crossed a line through it and re-tacked. He's asked that exact question before so I'm unsure the motivation.

Yep, Q4 of October 2007 was pretty similar - i.e. a question which raised a sale of goods issue and most likely a sale by description and thus arguably a need to discuss the extent to which the clause would survive the fair and reasonable test (it not being a consumer issue). Yet, when one looks at the report, there isn't a single mention of this being the "way to go" when its pretty much the first thing a lawyer would think of on the point.

partyguinness

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

lads we have plenty of lawyers in this country - don't mind wasting yer times doing fe1s and do a proper degree like commerce or medicine would ye.

best of luck all the same!

E

Commerce...haha!!...sure the dogs in the street know that it is useless and you must do a post grad afterwards just to work in a bank...:D

McLawin

Hi all,

Quick question for anyone doing Property and in particular, Judgment Mortgages: The LCLR Act seems silent as to whether the "technical defence" to s.6 JMA 1850 survived its repeal under s.117 LCLR Act. In fact, it doesn't say anything about affidavits (I'm guessing cos the PRA has substituted the role of court in registration). Does anyone know if the introduction of the Act has cleared this up at all?

Trying to reconcile the Act with my notes ("the old law") is making my brain leak out my ears.

Mr. Incognito

Succession (Obviously)
Ad Possession
Cohabitees
Reg/Unreg Land

I don't understand this logic. If succession only comes up in one question you don't even have 5 topics if the rest do come up.

I think Co-ownership is a handy and easy problem question. Landlord and tenant is long but very easy when it comes up.

If you are stuck

Reg/ Unreg
Sucession
Cohabitees,
Co-ownership
Family Propety
Easements (very short)
Covenants (short)
Licences

and make sure you download the new explanatory memorandum for the 2009 Act should get you a pass.

tony28

Any thoughts on EU today and the issues raised in the questions