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

smeal

For Company I have covered:

SLP
Company Borrowing
Capital Maintenance
Shares/Transfer of Shares
Directors/Restrictions/Duties/Duties arising on Insolvency
Corporate Authority
Receivership

Hoping its enough to get me over the line! Brain has turned to mush- best of luck to everyone

Hunchback

Mileyt wrote: »

Hi all just wondering with regards to property does anyone know if covering mortgages is it just judgment mortgages you need to know out of whole topic? Thanks

I take absolutely no responsibility or blame if you choose to listen to this, BUT.....

I can tell you that the Griffith college lecturer said absolutely forget about judgment mortgages. He said if anything comes up in relation to mortgages (and it probably won't) it is going to be about the rights of the mortgagor.

But he said (and of course he did a disclaimer much like the one I have done above) that in terms of time management, unless you are already very familiar with the topic, SKIP IT. There is only a 30% frequency of it on the paper.

Of course me posting this here now means it is almost a guaranteed dead certainty that it will be in the exam now.


Unrelated note - how come we are allowed to take the Succession Act into the exam but not the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009? Hmmmm...head scratcher

dashdoll

I hate this part...Company tomor and sitting in my hotel room trying to study.

Always feel trapped or something stuck in a hotel room before exams and find it so hard to concenitrate... oh well....here we go.

Good luck tomor everyone.

MJW5

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

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)

I thought the same? Is Richard not the third party? and then your asked to advise against Richard's employer? And then whether Richard's joke was within the course of his employment/enhancement of risk etc. I thought the bit re stress was just contributory and to make you think it was about employer's liability when actually it was question 8 that was employers?

Figsy32

anosullivan wrote: »

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

They seem to be the usual anyway! If you have anything on the first part of the borrowing chapter it might be a good option too!

socorobo

anosullivan wrote: »

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

I think the Retention of Title Clauses have come up in the most recent paper so Corporate Borrowing (fixed, floating, and fixed charges over book debts) might be a better bet. If you've done RoTC already, all the stuff about registration under s.99 and when you can have the 21 day period (and Resnoid v Mica) extended still applies. There's not too much to it (the only tricky stuff is fixed charges over book debts) and it comes up very often.

Lawexe2012

MJW5 wrote: »

I thought the same? Is Richard not the third party? and then your asked to advise against Richard's employer? And then whether Richard's joke was within the course of his employment/enhancement of risk etc. I thought the bit re stress was just contributory and to make you think it was about employer's liability when actually it was question 8 that was employers?

Exactly!!!! Beyond the scope of his employment like lawlor and o connor etc! Thank you your post has made me feel a lot less sick!!

bivo87

FEar1 wrote: »

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:

Great good to know.. iv only skimmed meetings but its easy and if your stuck for a last question you could form one out of the companies acts alone, Courtney has even said this in the exam reports.

i dunno i keep mixing up my topics though... so frustrating....

lawbear

So I failed Tort with flying colours today. you have to know every single topic, simple as.

what really annoys me is that I have company, equity, land and criminal passed. If I were to sit any of those exams this week I would fail every single one of them so I really feel sometimes these exams are a complete and utter money racket for the Law Society.

bivo87

anosullivan wrote: »

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

there seems to be such a mix.. i don't have the last two papers though just up until april 2014. id say the most popular are corporate borrowing, directors, restriction, oppression and share transfers.

examinership/ liquidatior and receiver seems to not be as popular and you would imagine them to be but can be mixed in with realisation of corporate assets!

i'm leaving exam/ receiv and liq out though.. too much muddling my brain....

Christy_C

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Exactly!!!! Beyond the scope of his employment like lawlor and o connor etc! Thank you your post has made me feel a lot less sick!!

Lawlor v o Connor is a deliberate wrong! How is a joke at the work place a deliberate wrong ? I can see what your saying but I just can't figure it out ! Oh well :-)

bivo87

lawbear wrote: »

So I failed Tort with flying colours today. you have to know every single topic, simple as.

what really annoys me is that I have company, equity, land and criminal passed. If I were to sit any of those exams this week I would fail every single one of them so I really feel sometimes these exams are a complete and utter money racket for the Law Society.

I second that... its a memory test with a bit of luck at the end of the day.. sometimes u can never tell though!

Lawexe2012

Christy_C wrote: »

Lawlor v o Connor is a deliberate wrong! How is a joke at the work place a deliberate wrong ? I can see what your saying but I just can't figure it out ! Oh well :-)

That case is used to talk about scope of employment and instances that go beyond like in lawlor v o Connor. Then gahan is used for the prank in the work place

shansey

7 years since I sat these... best of luck to you all.. it gets easier!

TimeToDance

Q8 today wrecked my head like nothing else. To me the facts seemed to read perfectly for a Q on vicarious liability at first... and then I realised that Jennifer is not the tortfeasor. She's attacked by a guest. So how can the employer be liable via VL if the employee did nothing wrong? For VL to apply, I thought the employee must commit a tort? Or can non-tortious behaviour suffice?

And then I thought there's a negligence claim against the employer as there were prior attacks making it reasonably foreseeable that it could happen again blah blah blah duty etc. So that'd be ord neg prins against the employer?

And yet the facts scream VL but they don't fit the formula.

That's why I kept thinking it must be employers liability and neg but can't be right either because Q3 is. If Q8 was vicarious liability(note she is a guest response associate = employee/independent contractor? + vicious assaults/deliberate wrongs - scope of duty), it would mean that Jennifer would have to rely on her own conduct/misfeasance with which to fix the employer with liability. But that doesn't make any sense. All the VL cases talk of employees injuring other people and she did nothing.

The best I could think of was the whole -whether she could enter the rooms or not. She had no training, but had a masterkey yet was told she shouldn't have opened the door and yet she should always satisfy the guests. This in my mind points to the scope/course test about what she was entitled to do or not do and the way in which she did her duties. Did she trespass?

That whole aspect is totally ambiguous as to the way in which she can enter rooms. So unless she commits a trespass against the rooms true owner by her conduct or some other tort which she can then rely on to fix her employer, I don't get how it could be Vicarious Liability. Doesn't make sense.

And even then, she can hardly ground an action against the employer for her own misfeasane.

I dunno. That question was toxic tbh. My answer ended up like this post - a total rant.

Anyone know for definite what the answer is?

TimeToDance

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

Exactly!!!! Beyond the scope of his employment like lawlor and o connor etc! Thank you your post has made me feel a lot less sick!!

Could you not say it was more a "frolic" as well? O Connell v bateman

XxMCRxBabyxX

TimeToDance wrote: »

Q8 today wrecked my head like nothing else. To me the facts seemed to read perfectly for a Q on vicarious liability at first... and then I realised that Jennifer is not the tortfeasor. She's attacked by a guest. So how can the employer be liable via VL if the employee did nothing wrong? For VL to apply, I thought the employee must commit a tort? Or can non-tortious behaviour suffice?

And then I thought there's a negligence claim against the employer as there were prior attacks making it reasonably foreseeable that it could happen again blah blah blah duty etc. So that'd be ord neg prins against the employer?

And yet the facts scream VL but they don't fit the formula.

That's why I kept thinking it must be employers liability and neg but can't be right either because Q3 is. If Q8 was vicarious liability(note she is a guest response associate = employee/independent contractor? + vicious assaults/deliberate wrongs - scope of duty), it would mean that Jennifer would have to rely on her own conduct/misfeasance with which to fix the employer with liability. But that doesn't make any sense. All the VL cases talk of employees injuring other people and she did nothing.

The best I could think of was the whole -whether she could enter the rooms or not. She had no training, but had a masterkey yet was told she shouldn't have opened the door and yet she should always satisfy the guests. This in my mind points to the scope/course test about what she was entitled to do or not do and the way in which she did her duties. Did she trespass?

That whole aspect is totally ambiguous as to the way in which she can enter rooms. So unless she commits a trespass against the rooms true owner by her conduct or some other tort which she can then rely on to fix her employer, I don't get how it could be Vicarious Liability. Doesn't make sense.

And even then, she can hardly ground an action against the employer for her own misfeasane.

I dunno. That question was toxic tbh. My answer ended up like this post - a total rant.

Anyone know for definite what the answer is?

I would have called Q3 vicarious liability and Q8 employer's liability though I ended up avoiding both of them because I hadn't studied those.

TimeToDance

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I would have called Q3 vicarious liability and Q8 employer's liability though I ended up avoiding both of them because I hadn't studied those.

That's how I basically went with them in the end although I did highlight the probe with VL in Q8. It felt like something was up the whole time though so my answers had no real conviction to them. I feel like Q8 was a VL trap. The facts were suggestive of it but it applied to Q3 more especially as Richard ****ed John up.

XxMCRxBabyxX

What I noticed was all the unnecessary info he puts into his the Q's. Presumably just to throw us off. It's hardly fair

TimeToDance

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

What I noticed was all the unnecessary info he puts into his the Q's. Presumably just to throw us off. It's hardly fair

I thought that as well. Normally I'd be slow to dismiss facts thinking every sentence has a purpose but it certainly felt at times that some of the problem Q's were padded out and irrelevant.

spaz_hawk

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

What I noticed was all the unnecessary info he puts into his the Q's. Presumably just to throw us off. It's hardly fair

From what I can remember from his reports I think where an answer could be answered with reference to different topics he tends to give people latitude to discuss what you thought was being examined. I could be wrong though.

Anyway, stressing over it now won't change anything so put it to one side and relax for a bit, I think we've earned it!

Kcookies2015

So landed to hotel after touring all industrial estates surrounding the Red Cow..... Parked in a panic by deliveries area! Emptied notes began studying then realised my legislation for company & property are sitting on my counter top in Co.Clare! Panic seriously setting in now looked on adverts & donedeal none for sale! Looks like it's memorising everything time 😩😀😭

anosullivan

Figsy32 wrote: »

They seem to be the usual anyway! If you have anything on the first part of the borrowing chapter it might be a good option too!

What exactly is in the first part of the chapter in borrowing? Is it like what are fixed and floating charges, being able to identify them etc??

bivo87

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

So landed to hotel after touring all industrial estates surrounding the Red Cow..... Parked in a panic by deliveries area! Emptied notes began studying then realised my legislation for company & property are sitting on my counter top in Co.Clare! Panic seriously setting in now looked on adverts & donedeal none for sale! Looks like it's memorising everything time 😩😀😭

can you get anyone to meet you? half way even? whens property? i might have the succession act.. and will be in the red cow tomorrow for company

Kcookies2015

bivo87 wrote: »

can you get anyone to meet you? half way even? whens property? i might have the succession act.. and will be in the red cow tomorrow for company

Nope unfortunately the one who can meet me normally is minding my son & other lives here in Dublin! First time sitting these so getting flustered! I can prob get sucession act tomorrow after company exam just snookered for this one even though had been working without them nice to have security' thanks a mill for your offer : )

bivo87

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Nope unfortunately the one who can meet me normally is minding my son & other lives here in Dublin! First time sitting these so getting flustered! I can prob get sucession act tomorrow after company exam just snookered for this one even though had been working without them nice to have security' thanks a mill for your offer : )

i know what you mean.. they probably wont even be opened :-) no problem, let me know if you need it and i can dig it out and bring it along with me tomorrow. also if your stuck for the 1963 act, i have an old one that i borrowed off someone (so would need back) but i have given it into the exam already today. but if your stuck i can tell the examiner to put it on your table on the morning if you really need it.

Basically i have two copies of the 1963 act because i was working off my own one but then got a folder last night with the 1990 act and and 1983 act (which i didn't have) but i had tabbed everything already in my own copy so u just left them all in.. sounds a bit messy so i hope thats not confusing (long story short i have two copies of the 1963 act)

i don't like to see people stuck so please don't panic and let me know if u will need it any of them

Kcookies2015

bivo87 wrote: »

i know what you mean.. they probably wont even be opened :-) no problem, let me know if you need it and i can dig it out and bring it along with me tomorrow. also if your stuck for the 1963 act, i have an old one that i borrowed off someone (so would need back) but i have given it into the exam already today. but if your stuck i can tell the examiner to put it on your table on the morning if you really need it.

Basically i have two copies of the 1963 act because i was working off my own one but then got a folder last night with the 1990 act and and 1983 act (which i didn't have) but i had tabbed everything already in my own copy so u just left them all in.. sounds a bit messy so i hope thats not confusing (long story short i have two copies of the 1963 act)

i don't like to see people stuck so please don't panic and let me know if u will need it any of them

Wow thanks a million that's so kind of you , I might message you with my ID number and if the second copy is ok to take that would be an ease I could flick through it and pretend I know what I'm doing anyways : ) your a life saver !

bivo87

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Wow thanks a million that's so kind of you , I might message you with my ID number and if the second copy is ok to take that would be an ease I could flick through it and pretend I know what I'm doing anyways : ) your a life saver !

No problem at all.. il defo have the 1963 act, but will just need it back after the exam as its not mine, il be in there till the end anyway (all going to plan :-) ) i think you can private message on this, il message you

dd19

How are people dealing with the recent Referendum in relation to Property Law? For example in the Protection of the Family Home etc. It's not included in the syllabus online. Just a brief mention of it or what?

Figsy32

anosullivan wrote: »

What exactly is in the first part of the chapter in borrowing? Is it like what are fixed and floating charges, being able to identify them etc??

Yep that's the one!