FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Daryl Strawberry

Legal125 wrote: »

Promissory. Shield.

Prop can be a cause of action

Sorry, I only understand explanations with Harry Potter metaphors now

sunshine and showers

Legal125 wrote: »

Promissory. Shield.

Prop can be a cause of action

It was a contract lecture...and a tongue in cheek explanation!

Midlecat

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It was a contract lecture...and a tongue in cheek explanation!

Bet if you put that in the exam it would be referred to in the repoets . like the guy in criminal who said if your man had been from Kilkenny in the problem q as suggested he wouldn't have missed and hit the unintended victim Lol. That report got me through last set kept thinking that there's always someone in exam hall worse than you even when everyone looks like they all know it

sunshine and showers

Midlecat wrote: »

Bet if you put that in the exam it would be referred to in the repoets . like the guy in criminal who said if your man had been from Kilkenny in the problem q as suggested he wouldn't have missed and hit the unintended victim Lol. That report got me through last set kept thinking that there's always someone in exam hall worse than you even when everyone looks like they all know it

HahaHaha, that gave me a laugh!

If I ever find the people who made it so law graduates have to do the FE1s...that being said, my degree is making them no easier! Genuinely terrified that I'm going to fail at least two and have to do all four again!

Legal125

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It was a contract lecture...and a tongue in cheek explanation!

I know people need to calm down. I was just saying the difference between them in case someone started to panic. Trying to be helpful.
Time to unfollow. This is the furthest place to be from helpful right now.

Bayley1

I just hoovered the whole house just to avoid study, have all my notes down to 2/3 pages so I may just read them right through til the morning

The freddos cracked me up too, although my snack of choice at the moment is mint kitkat...

Good luck tomorrow guys

MissM89

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ray-darcy-left-shaken-after-he-foils-group-of-car-thieves-in-unsettling-encounter-30608704.html

Anyone parking out at the Red Cow should have a read of this article - it seems to have happened on Monday! Just a warning to be careful of any valuables!

dashdoll

Could anyone possibly explain the concept of prescription within easements (in a few concise lines!)

Manual is so unclear on it...cannot understand it at all..not even sure if it is relevant!

Bertie1986

dashdoll wrote: »

Could anyone possibly explain the concept of prescription within easements (in a few concise lines!)

Manual is so unclear on it...cannot understand it at all..not even sure if it is relevant!

I cannot get my head around it so I scrapped it and am just learning the rest of easements - the characteristics and a few recognised easements. Could at least answer 2/3 problem question if not a full one. I don't think the creation of easements has come up on its own before??

dashdoll

Bertie1986 wrote: »

I cannot get my head around it so I scrapped it and am just learning the rest of easements - the characteristics and a few recognised easements. Could at least answer 2/3 problem question if not a full one. I don't think the creation of easements has come up on its own before??

No, don't think it has!

Mileyt

dashdoll wrote: »

No, don't think it has!

It's been abolished the prescription act, you arming from old manual it's now in law reform 2009 act. I just found this online.

HeyTherePlease

dashdoll wrote: »

Could anyone possibly explain the concept of prescription within easements (in a few concise lines!)

Manual is so unclear on it...cannot understand it at all..not even sure if it is relevant!

it's basically where your accquire a right due to a long period of use... it arises out of common law (if use from a time immemorial) from lost modern grant prescription (presumption that due to usage in excess of 20 years you had a grant but lost it) and statute (20 years)... but LCLRA has altered/abolished the above so dont worry too much

Mileyt

Does anyone know if property examiner is an easy marker from experience ...

tiger_cub

I have no time off for these exams, just the days off to actually sit the test and then back down to the office to work the days in between. Today my boss commented on lucky I am to be at work so it could take my mind off study!! :mad:

i just needed to vent, sorry! I also bought freddos after reading this thread!

saor19

Mileyt wrote: »

Does anyone know if property examiner is an easy marker from experience ...

She seems fair! She likes you to highlight your cases if you have time!

LawCQ91

tiger_cub wrote: »

I have no time off for these exams, just the days off to actually sit the test and then back down to the office to work the days in between. Today my boss commented on lucky I am to be at work so it could take my mind off study!! :mad:

i just needed to vent, sorry! I also bought freddos after reading this thread!

That was mean! Hope you get all of them out of the way soon and leave for a better place !!

sunshine and showers

I know it's not wise, but it is doable to leave out mortgages and LL/tenant law, isn't it? Head is melted!

Bayley1

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I know it's not wise, but it is doable to leave out mortgages and LL/tenant law, isn't it? Head is melted!

I'm leaving them both out

Daryl Strawberry

Bayley1 wrote: »

I'm leaving them both out

So weird me and my mates I know who are doing it just discovered tonight we are all leaving those two out.

Could be some widespread disappointment tomorrow ha

Redo91

Bayley1 wrote: »

I'm leaving them both out

Same here.

dashdoll

Redo91 wrote: »

Same here.

Need a nap. :-(

dashdoll

Does anyone happen to know if the s56 right to appropriate the family dwelling home applies to Civil Partners or qualified cohabitants also or is it just spouses?

Bayley1

dashdoll wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know if the s56 right to appropriate the family dwelling home applies to Civil Partners or qualified cohabitants also or is it just spouses?

It applies to civil partners, section 70 of civil partnership act amends section 56 to insert "or civil partner" after spouse wherever it appears

No mention of co-habitees that I could see

dashdoll

Bayley1 wrote: »

It applies to civil partners, section 70 of civil partnership act amends section 56 to insert "or civil partner" after spouse wherever it appears

No mention of co-habitees that I could see

Thanks so much.

Midlecat

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I know it's not wise, but it is doable to leave out mortgages and LL/tenant law, isn't it? Head is melted!

I did in march and both came up but so did old reliables so was covered. LL very hard do well in by all accounts so didn't bother with it

Pepp1989

Hey guys,

Getting a bit confused on the issue of past consideration in contract. Specifically the exception to the rule. The common fact pattern where someone is offered something as a gift but subsequently promises to pay for it at a later date...is this sufficient consideration under the exception? I'm confusing myself and mind is a bit muddled! Would appreciate any help! Thanks!

Midlecat

Pepp1989 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Getting a bit confused on the issue of past consideration in contract. Specifically the exception to the rule. The common fact pattern where someone is offered something as a gift but subsequently promises to pay for it at a later date...is this sufficient consideration under the exception? I'm confusing myself and mind is a bit muddled! Would appreciate any help! Thanks!

No because the unsolicited act of giving of giving the gift is not good consideration as it was given before contract made ie past is none.

The exception is if the gift had been given at the request of the promisor and it had been anticipated that he would be paid for the gift and that if the person who received the gift had promised to pay before the contract came into effect it would have been enforceable.

That would be my interpretation under pao on v lau you long anyways but I'm no expert

JCx

The stamina needed for these exams is unreal!!
In relation to Contract Law tomorrow, I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on leaving out Consumer Protection and Discharge???

Pepp1989

Midlecat wrote: »

No because the unsolicited act of giving of giving the gift is not good consideration as it was given before contract made ie past is none.

The exception is if the gift had been given at the request of the promisor and it had been anticipated that he would be paid for the gift and that if the person who received the gift had promised to pay before the contract came into effect it would have been enforceable.

That would be my interpretation under pao on v lau you long anyways but I'm no expert

Lightbulb moment and suddenly I get it! Thanks Midlecat! Was getting frustrated!

livelovelaugh

JCx wrote: »

The stamina needed for these exams is unreal!!
In relation to Contract Law tomorrow, I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on leaving out Consumer Protection and Discharge???

Consumer protection albeit boring comes up every year and is handy to learn...I'm not leaving it out. That being said, it is so hard to pick what to leave out when the questions can have so many topics mixed in!!

Anybody have more useful guidance?!