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

FE1Qatar

sunshine and showers wrote:

If you've studied for it seven times and not passed, maybe it's your answering technique?

Yeah I thought this too so I have done the courses and have had sample answers corrected by different sources - the guys giving the courses, old lecturers, barrister friends and I think they're ok! I'm just not getting the fundamentals right somewhere! I have failed them all by 3 percent max! I passed it the first time I sat it but due to the rule of having to pass 3 first time I failed it by default!! It's just getting very frustrating!!

SteJay

Anyone have the company Oct 2014 topics to hand?

I sat the exam but lost the exam paper since

Cant remember some of the topics that came up

Thanks

FEar1

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

Well, I've covered institutions, sources of EU law, supremacy/direct effect, the freedoms, citizenship, competition, equality.

Not sure, if i'll cover state aids and mergers, or free movement of capital. Not sure how often those areas are asked as I dont have a grid. I hope I'm not leaving myself short. What are you covering?

Would you say its safe enough to cover competition without looking at state aid? I've most of the same topics as you covered thankfully!

TinkledPink

FE1Qatar wrote: »

Yeah I thought this too so I have done the courses and have had sample answers corrected by different sources - the guys giving the courses, old lecturers, barrister friends and I think they're ok! I'm just not getting the fundamentals right somewhere! I have failed them all by 3 percent max! I passed it the first time I sat it but due to the rule of having to pass 3 first time I failed it by default!! It's just getting very frustrating!!

You just have to remember that the only thing examiners want is a fluid understanding of the topics at hand and a sufficient ability to elaborate on them via cases. It's not a thesis level understanding you need. For FE1's breadth is key, not depth. You need to know a bit about a lot which can be hard to accept for some.

Instead, focus on being able to discuss a topic with relative ease and being able to write about it comfortably in your own words. If you can show in any way some relevant critical thought as to the issues you're presented with you've already passed well and are ahead of most candidates. In contrast to a fluid understanding of issues is a mechanical understanding which most of us adopt in our panic and lack of time. This is where you choose to churn out info rather than ever really questioning or discussing anything of relevance which is asked and this approach is to be avoided where possible. Critical thinking is gold in exams because people lose all composure and just panic when they see questions. If you panic, you'll focus on trying to get 3, 4 or 5 pages per question which will probably be of quite dubious material. However, if you can write 2.5 - 3 pages of succinct, relevant and composed accurate information that addresses the question, you've won.

It can seem like it but the exams don't require being able to ream off case after case in the hope that bombarding them will suffice for a pass (although it probably will). There's a level whereby you understand a topic, but then there's a higher standard of thinking whereby you not only know a topic but can comment on its significance or consequence or problems. The only thing an essay question can do is essentially ask you whether something is good or bad and your thoughts on it. Problems will usually focus on what the law is as well as subtle distinctions in it and the appropriate tests and principles to be applied.

Forget learning off essays for Constitutional or the exams in general and focus on the substance of issues. If you can strike at the heart of what any given topic is really about, you're home and dry. As an example, I was looking today at Succession Law and the question from the last paper.

"Outline the assess the Irish Court's approach to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in the construction of wills."

Obviously you start off discussing the courts general reluctance to introduce external sources for the construction of wills...prefer to read within the 4 corners of a will... armchair principle... except where latent ambiguities exist. Then you get to Re Julian (money left to the wrong Seamen's Institute & court refused to admit evidence) The term was clear and unambiguous but obviously not according to the testatrix's intentions. So assess the court's approach; were they right to refuse to introduce evidence and fix the obvious mistake?

Apply critical thinking. Yes, absolutely. The purpose of succession law is not only to give effect to a testator's intentions but also to provide them with certainty that their intentions will be followed and not interfered with after their death. SC rightly felt they shouldn't interfere with unambiguous and clear terms or else chaos ensues i.e. it's open season to challenging wills.

Then of course, the legislature tries its best to **** **** up with s90 Succession Act 1965 meaning you can admit extrinsic evidence to assist construction of testator's intentions whenever you want. The SC understandably freaks out about this in Rowe v Law and Re Collins. It would mean that any will could be challenged and evidence introduced to purportedly show the testator's intentions. This would of course completely undermine Succession law because what's the point in having such strict rules on formalities and capacity if any jackass can stroll in and claim to know what you meant to say in your will. If this was permitted, not only is it possible your intentions would not be followed but you could certainly not be guaranteed that on your death you will wouldn't be interfered with. Chaos etc. SC pre-empt this and rightly restrict the application of s90. Yes, tough luck for the old lady and her executors in Re Julian but the alternative had much wider and disastrous implications. SC approach - top drawer. The end. Question answered critically etc etc, not a narrative.

People make the understandable mistake in exams of going on autopilot and simply trying to recall recall recall info and this just saps you of energy and marks. Learn the names of main cases and what they say now, not in three weeks time.

My advice for Constitutional is to cover a lot of topics but more importantly try to understand them and their prevailing themes or issues which the courts grapple with rather than spending hours slaving over minutia or obscure cases which aren't prominent authorities.

If you have a reasonable command of English, the main cases learned off, an understanding of a topic and the main issues inherent to it, you're grand. Quit worrying about what will or won't come up and just start doing the topics that we all know will most likely come up. Examiners are crying out for an appreciation of issues, so just give it to them. Obviously this is all easier said than done, but there's plenty of time yet and it's just a matter of being committed and focused on what's important.

Lawstudent007

FEar1 wrote: »

Would you say its safe enough to cover competition without looking at state aid? I've most of the same topics as you covered thankfully!

Is state aid usually asked in conjunction with competition law? If not, I think I'll skim over it at the very least. But at this point in time I have no time to cover it. I might later, but not now. I really have to start Constitution tomorrow.

Lawstudent007

FEar1 wrote: »

Would you say its safe enough to cover competition without looking at state aid? I've most of the same topics as you covered thankfully!

Also, apart from the ones I've mentioned, which topics did you cover that I haven't? As I've mentioned I have no grid so it's all a stab in the dark for me

TheCrutzer

Anyone doing Equity what are you covering? Are ye going to leave anything out or simply cover everything?

Lily Belle

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

Well, I've covered institutions, sources of EU law, supremacy/direct effect, the freedoms, citizenship, competition, equality.

Not sure, if i'll cover state aids and mergers, or free movement of capital. Not sure how often those areas are asked as I dont have a grid. I hope I'm not leaving myself short. What are you covering?

Same as you, I was thinking of throwing in prelim reference or Brussels too but not sure if I'd be covered in what I've already done notes for. Seriously need to put a stop to the note taking at this stage.

WhiteWalls

I have notes that are four years old, would they be far too old to be looking at?

FEar1

WhiteWalls wrote: »

I have notes that are four years old, would they be far too old to be looking at?

It just makes a bit of work for you to make sure the cases and legislation you're talking about are still good law I suppose but as long as you keep a check on that you're grand I'd say

FEar1

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

Also, apart from the ones I've mentioned, which topics did you cover that I haven't? As I've mentioned I have no grid so it's all a stab in the dark for me

I haven't a clue. Just saw competition mentioned in the State Aid chapter I was looking at I think. Same as you but I've preliminary references done as well just because I'd decent notes on it from college

hochspitch

Hey guys, in light of the recent water charges debacle I figured freedom of assembly would be a hot topic. Only thing is I can't find anything on it. All the texts I've reviewed only go into detail on Freedom of Expression and Association. Anyone know any good links to info on freedom on assembly (particularly in terms of protests), or any important cases on the matter? Would appreciate any help.

LawCQ91

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

Well, I've covered institutions, sources of EU law, supremacy/direct effect, the freedoms, citizenship, competition, equality.

Not sure, if i'll cover state aids and mergers, or free movement of capital. Not sure how often those areas are asked as I dont have a grid. I hope I'm not leaving myself short. What are you covering?

I am the same, am also leaving out the Case note questions, just don't think it's a good investment in my time, leaving out the history intro chapter and private international law. Haven't decided should I drop mergers yet. Yet to do all the competition stuff

I am doing the course with independent He says there is usually a internal choice between competition law/equality/private international law,so if you do 2/3 you should be covered. SO that's me dropping the private international law topic

dandadub

LawCQ91 wrote: »

I am the same, am also leaving out the Case note questions, just don't think it's a good investment in my time, leaving out the history intro chapter and private international law. Haven't decided should I drop mergers yet. Yet to do all the competition stuff

I am doing the course with independent He says there is usually a internal choice between competition law/equality/private international law,so if you do 2/3 you should be covered. SO that's me dropping the private international law topic

Looking at the grids, Citizenship apparently comes up nearly for all papers. However i cant spot the question on each paper. what am i missing? What ways have the citizenship questions come up?

Troels Hartmann

Hey all

I'm sitting EU, Constitutional and Company this sitting and I'm looking to get my hands on Exam Papers, Examiners Reports, and sample answers for roughly 2011-2014 if at all possible.

I have plenty of stuff for all other subjects from roughly 2006-2011 (papers, reports, sample answers) and would be happy to trade!

I know I can get them from the LS but decided to try the easy route first!

Troels Hartmann

For Company, I've done (in order of importance)

Directors duties
Borrowing
Separate legal personality
Restrictions/disqualifications
Shares/Shareholders/Transfers of shares
Shareholder protection
Realisation of assets
Liquidation
Company docs, objects, amendments thereof, etc
Corporate authoirty
Ultra Vires

Meaning I've left out completely:

Meetings
Receivership/Examinership
Reckless/fraudulent trading
Capital maintenance

Anyone have any thoughts?

(PS: By "done" I mean I've studied them all! Long way from having proper notes finished but I probably know whats what for all of the above)

j80ezgvc3p92xu

What do people think of leaving the Sale of Goods Act out of contract? Good or bad idea?

sunshine and showers

Alma Tight Nitty-gritty wrote: »

What do people think of leaving the Sale of Goods Act out of contract? Good or bad idea?

Just wonder why you would when you have the act with you.

Lolers11

hochspitch wrote: »

Hey guys, in light of the recent water charges debacle I figured freedom of assembly would be a hot topic. Only thing is I can't find anything on it. All the texts I've reviewed only go into detail on Freedom of Expression and Association. Anyone know any good links to info on freedom on assembly (particularly in terms of protests), or any important cases on the matter? Would appreciate any help.

Yes I was thinking the same myself. I'm working from a manual and there is only one page on Assembly! I can't seem to find much case law on it. The question that dealt with this topic in March 2011 was very general, but I wouldn't really be able to answer it at the moment.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Just wonder why you would when you have the act with you.

1) Don't want to pay for the act
2) I know most of the other topics fairly well

I suppose my main question is would it show up under other topics as well meaning that you should not chance leaving it out?

sunshine and showers

Alma Tight Nitty-gritty wrote: »

1) Don't want to pay for the act
2) I know most of the other topics fairly well

I suppose my main question is would it show up under other topics as well meaning that you should not chance leaving it out?

It's only a fiver or so and fairly handy as a topic so I wouldn't leave it out, but I think you could get away with it.

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Alma Tight Nitty-gritty wrote: »

What do people think of leaving the Sale of Goods Act out of contract? Good or bad idea?

I passed the exam without even looking at that topic, Id say you will definitely be fine without it.

Dsalmon91

Just looking for some advice in regards to answering questions in the exams. How long of an answer do the examiners expect per question for example how many pages long should your answers be around. Would a 2/3 page well answered question suffice?

Troels Hartmann

Dsalmon91 wrote: »

Just looking for some advice in regards to answering questions in the exams. How long of an answer do the examiners expect per question for example how many pages long should your answers be around. Would a 2/3 page well answered question suffice?

There's no correct or easy answer to that question but generally I think a minimum of 3 pages is needed for a good solid "pass" standard answer to any question. There are a lot of variables to that though - eg is a probelm Q or an essay; number of issues addressed; and the size of your own writing! But generally I think 3 is what you should be aiming for at the least.

Troels Hartmann

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

I passed the exam without even looking at that topic, Id say you will definitely be fine without it.

I also passed without looking at it in detail. I think I literally had a couple of lines on the bare minimum provisions - sale by sample, merchantable quality, etc etc.

LawCQ91

dandadub wrote: »

Looking at the grids, Citizenship apparently comes up nearly for all papers. However i cant spot the question on each paper. what am i missing? What ways have the citizenship questions come up?

I would imagine along with free movement of workers? I haven't really looked at the papers yet.. busy notes typing still :P

LawCQ91

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

For Company, I've done (in order of importance)

Directors duties
Borrowing
Separate legal personality
Restrictions/disqualifications
Shares/Shareholders/Transfers of shares
Shareholder protection
Realisation of assets
Liquidation
Company docs, objects, amendments thereof, etc
Corporate authoirty
Ultra Vires

Meaning I've left out completely:

Meetings
Receivership/Examinership
Reckless/fraudulent trading
Capital maintenance

Anyone have any thoughts?

(PS: By "done" I mean I've studied them all! Long way from having proper notes finished but I probably know whats what for all of the above)

It would be very unlikely for all the topics you have left out to come up together as 4 whole different questions, so you are safe enough i think.

Although, when I sat the company exam, i left out UV, meetings, receivership, shares and reckless/fraudulent trading and covered the rest of the course. And what came up? UV, meetings, Shares and receivership ...for that sitting the banker Q borrowings didn't come up...

I still got 57% even though I didn't really have a 5th question... I wrote down everything I could find on the act about shares :P

Troels Hartmann

LawCQ91 wrote: »

It would be very unlikely for all the topics you have left out to come up together as 4 whole different questions, so you are safe enough i think.

Although, when I sat the company exam, i left out UV, meetings, receivership, shares and reckless/fraudulent trading and covered up the rest of the course. And what came up? UV, meetings, Shares and receivership ...for that sitting the banker Q borrowings didn't come up...

I still got 57% even thought I didn't really have a 5th question... I wrote down everything I could find on the act about shares :P

Murphys Law! It happened me with Contract two sittings ago, but unfortunately I didn't have your luck and pass it!

LawCQ91

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Murphys Law! It happened me with Contract two sittings ago, but unfortunately I didn't have your luck and pass it!

If i were you I would also just look at the main changes for the new company law act also. Just know the main changes very briefly, and mention it if you can? Every little helps..especially the examiner was so involved with getting this new act in place.

Troels Hartmann

LawCQ91 wrote: »

If i were you I would also just look at the main changes for the new company law act also. Just know the main changes very briefly, and mention it if you can? Every little helps..especially the examiner was so involved with getting this new act in place.

Probably true. Although in fairness I think U.V. is the only section where you'd have to go into anything more than a one-liner (ie. explaining where it's been abolished)