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

louser1

Legalseagull wrote: »

Guys for anyone doing these exams for the first time can I make a suggestion...the most important this is to get 5 questions down! I'm repeating 2 exams because I fecked up my timing and only got 4 questions in each. A poor 5th would have got me the 50. It's a killer! To pass the exam you only need to get 50% in each question, but if you only do 4 questions you've got to get 60%+ in each (bad math?). I'm hoping not to make the same mistake this time around!

Definitely second this!!! Keep an eye on the clock and move on to the next question after 35 mins! Go back at the end of you've time!

bivo87

Legalseagull wrote: »

Second that - the tutor in Independent suggested ignoring ROT's. Definitely worth learning the rest as a fixed/floating charge problem question would be dead simple. Even if you just knew how to recognise them, and then just the Woolcomber's case and Siebe Gorma, Spectrum and Keenan Bros for Book Debts.

That's 4 cases, a quick read through, and possibly an extra question in the bank!

i doing the company exam by the old acts.. so i was thinking because ultra vires is abolished with the new act, it couldn't really come up?? Anyone have any thoughts?

XxMCRxBabyxX

Ah lads, I'm f**led. Can't remember a single case name

spaz_hawk

4 hours to go. Best of luck everyone!

Hunchback

Well, when you are all out of the exam and read this, remember, you are still going! That is one of the hardest ones done now. Good luck to all of ye, I hope every single Boardsie passes, just for being a Boardsie!!!

I can't wait to hear how everybody found the paper? It's going to provide me with the perfect excuse to stop studying just to check in here and read the post mortems

neesie_85

Good Luck Everyone!!! Hope it goes well!

missindigo123

Legalseagull wrote: »

Second that - the tutor in Independent suggested ignoring ROT's. Definitely worth learning the rest as a fixed/floating charge problem question would be dead simple. Even if you just knew how to recognise them, and then just the Woolcomber's case and Siebe Gorma, Spectrum and Keenan Bros for Book Debts.

That's 4 cases, a quick read through, and possibly an extra question in the bank!

Did the Independant tutor recommend anything else? I did the course last year but never got to do the exam and found him really good!

Christy_C

Well that was very tough ! Felt like walking out at the start of the exam when I first read the questions. Calmed down a bit then and re read the questions. Managed to answer 5 questions anyway so I'm just hoping beyond believe that I put down enough information to get the magic 50!!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Christy_C wrote: »

Well that was very tough ! Felt like walking out at the start of the exam when I first read the questions. Calmed down a bit then and re read the questions. Managed to answer 5 questions anyway so I'm just hoping beyond believe that I put down enough information to get the magic 50!!

I very nearly walked out too. Got one good question but the rest were disasters. It's like he knew what I studied and picked everything else!!

Christy_C

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I very nearly walked out too. Got one good question but the rest were disasters. It's like he knew what I studied and picked everything else!!

Yes, it felt like he purposely tried to catch me out and teach me a lesson haha! I did the questions on General Negligence, nuisance, limitation of damages, defective products.

I was positive enough going in but jeez that quickly dissipated once I saw the exam questions!

Era nothing we can do now only focus on the next exam!

spaz_hawk

Christy_C wrote: »

Yes, it felt like he purposely tried to catch me out and teach me a lesson haha! I did the questions on General Negligence, nuisance, limitation of damages, defective products.

I was positive enough going in but jeez that quickly dissipated once I saw the exam questions!

Era nothing we can do now only focus on the next exam!

Felt the exact same way, thought it was a harsh paper but hopefully if everyone felt the same way he will mark it easier.

Bertie1986

Very tricky paper I thought.

Did anyone attempt question 8 and if so what issues/area did you deal with? I wrote about trespass to the person and liability for actions of third parties but on reading it now I'm thinking employers liability should have been mentioned??

Thanks

FEar1

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I very nearly walked out too. Got one good question but the rest were disasters. It's like he knew what I studied and picked everything else!!

Ditto that. Animals, trespass, vicarious all go amiss again! Felt like he didn't change a massive amount from topics in March sitting, did he?

Managed to scrape together 5 questions anyway so feck it, onto Company!

Thank god ye agree that ROT clauses unlikely again. Didn't like the look of it at all. Rest of corporate borrowing is fair enough to follow. What do people reckon for shares question? Share transfer maybe?

FEar1

Bertie1986 wrote: »

Very tricky paper I thought.

Did anyone attempt question 8 and if so what issues/area did you deal with? I wrote about trespass to the person and liability for actions of third parties but on reading it now I'm thinking employers liability should have been mentioned??

Thanks

Went down Employers Liability and Occupiers Liability route.

MJW5

What did everyone do for question 3? Was it Vicarious Liability or Employer's Liability?

Lawexe2012

Question 1 and 3 what do you guys think the topics were?

Lawexe2012

MJW5 wrote: »

What did everyone do for question 3? Was it Vicarious Liability or Employer's Liability?

Vicarious and trespass to the person infliction of emotional suffering

MJW5

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Vicarious and trespass to the person infliction of emotional suffering

Since when does he mix topics though?!

FEar1

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Vicarious and trespass to the person infliction of emotional suffering

I thought Employers and Stress Related Psychological Injury and Duty to Provide Competent Staff

Case of Hough v Irish Base Metals seemed relevant.

Christy_C

MJW5 wrote: »

Since when does he mix topics though?!

Ahhh I'm pretty sure question 3 was causation/remotemess? material contribution, egg-shell skull rule?

Well thats what I did anyway. I didn't know he mixed topics?

Christy_C

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Question 1 and 3 what do you guys think the topics were?

For question one on focused on duty of care and standard of care. Question 3 as I said above causation, factual and legal.

oraghabd

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Vicarious and trespass to the person infliction of emotional suffering

Vicarious liability? But there was no 3rd party. I only did trespass to the person - infliction...

Lawexe2012

oraghabd wrote: »

Vicarious liability? But there was no 3rd party. I only did trespass to the person - infliction...

The third party was the person who suffered the injury and then Richard who committed the act and the company. It was similar enough to gahan v British motor company (I could be wrong though and from the thread I think I am)

Lawexe2012

Christy_C wrote: »

For question one on focused on duty of care and standard of care. Question 3 as I said above causation, factual and legal.

For question one I focused on how parents and carers can be liable for acts of a child Sullivan v creed Curley v mannion?

bivo87

FEar1 wrote: »

Ditto that. Animals, trespass, vicarious all go amiss again! Felt like he didn't change a massive amount from topics in March sitting, did he?

Managed to scrape together 5 questions anyway so feck it, onto Company!

Thank god ye agree that ROT clauses unlikely again. Didn't like the look of it at all. Rest of corporate borrowing is fair enough to follow. What do people reckon for shares question? Share transfer maybe?

so you think focus on fixed/floating charge and book debts? i don't have the last exam but not sure, but i cant see a question on ultra vires if its abolished in the new act?

i'm doing
corporate borrowing
seperate legal personality
advant/disad of incorporation/section 25 contracts
ostensible authority
restriction
directors
realisation of corporate assets
share transfers and
oppression
meetings

Leaving out fraudulent trading/liquitation/examinership/receiver and capital maintenance

Christy_C

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

For question one I focused on how parents and carers can be liable for acts of a child Sullivan v creed Curley v mannion?

Yeah so first establish a duty of care for third parties, control & assumption of responsibility. Then did she breach that duty focusing on probability and gravity???

O i don't know - such a tricky tricky paper

Lawexe2012

Christy_C wrote: »

For question one on focused on duty of care and standard of care. Question 3 as I said above causation, factual and legal.

For question one I focused on how parents and carers can be liable for acts of a child Sullivan v creed Curley v mannion?

FEar1

bivo87 wrote: »

so you think focus on fixed/floating charge and book debts? i don't have the last exam but not sure, but i cant see a question on ultra vires if its abolished in the new act?

i'm doing
corporate borrowing
seperate legal personality
advant/disad of incorporation/section 25 contracts
ostensible authority
restriction
directors
realisation of corporate assets
share transfers and
oppression
meetings

Leaving out fraudulent trading/liquitation/examinership/receiver and capital maintenance

Exactly. Fixed & Floating & Charges on Book Debts (to be safe know the craic with registration of charges and S99)

I've the same as you bar corporate authority and meetings. Ultra Vires is abolished under CA 2014 so I would imagine it can't be asked as a question because it would take a question away from anyone answering with the new Act... Stranger things have happened though :rolleyes:

Hunchback

Property Law Question:-

I am not sure I understand the approach what with bringing in the legislation to the exam and everything. I have my Succession Act tabbed and everything. So let's just say that a question comes up in relation to how land passes when a person dies intestate. I just turn to the page I have tabbed in my Act and it's all there for me, in black and white. What am I missing? I know the obvious answer would seem to be case law, but there is no case law on the matter in the Griffith College sample answers.

So, what am I missing? It can't be that easy.

Can it?

anosullivan

So, what exactly would be considered "bankers" for company

From previous exams it looks like minority shs, directors duties and restriction of directors are a good bet. I've covered DSLP also. Ive done a small bit on share transfer, ROTC, and the dissipation of assets Q.. Am I missing and certain questions?? I know i havent done corporate contracts but with the confusion around it i dont know will it come up