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

legallywrecked

Anyone else suffering from a complete lack of motivation at this stage? First exam is Company and you'd think I was finished I'm so relaxed today. I'm nowhere near prepared so I don't know what I'm at!

Rebelgirl87

legallywrecked wrote: »

Anyone else suffering from a complete lack of motivation at this stage? First exam is Company and you'd think I was finished I'm so relaxed today. I'm nowhere near prepared so I don't know what I'm at!

I was like that yesterday! I think its the fact that we have been studying for so long it has seemed endless. It will be grand on the day. Best of luck anyway in all your exams.

Snakeydoogey

Best of luck for the next couple of weeks folks

XxMCRxBabyxX

Here goes nothing...
Good luck all!

Tyler Durdenn

It would be great it someone could please post the grind school reccommendations to focus on for Constitutional and EU?

Many thanks!

FE1010101

Hi, just wondering has anybody got a step by step method they use for answering constitutional questions? Is there some template one could use that would cover most questions?

Tigerbalm1

Does anyone have any equity tips? Trying to cut down topics! Also if anyone has any exam reports they'd be willing to share I would be very grateful!

20029422

unfair preference burden lies on liquidator to prove unless creditor is connected person burden shifts onto them.all other cases liquidator must prove intention to prefer one creditor over another.does this mean if the creditor is a connected person intention to prefer is not an issue or that the connected person must prove no intention to prefer?

nuac

Best of luck to all in your exams.

Happiest days of your lives and all that

amomcnico91

Well...first ones down - Tort is such a big topic, I spent so much time on it, so alot of work to do for Company tomorrow.

What topics are ye focusing on?

binkevii

hi, what questions do you expect for the company?

20029422

binkevii wrote: »

hi, what questions do you expect for the company?

i think crystallisation of floating charges will come up due to the change in the law with the jd brian case.im sure they get bored asking same questions correcting same answers so I hope that something that is fresh they will want to ask about it

ladadidadi234

Hi,

So sitting here daydreaming when I should be studying constitutional. Can someone just let me know if these topics are enough or if I should including more ?

Sep of Powers
The Oireachtas
Family & Education
Freedom of Expression
Religious Freedom
Due Course of Law & Due Process
Principles of Judicial Review
Abortion and The Unborn
Property Rights
Equality
Proportionality
Findings of Unconstituitionality

Then in less detail:
Personal Liberty
The Courts

I'm so scared. 2nd time sitting it and I'm freaking out as I passed last time and only resitting as I failed contract!

amomcnico91

20029422 wrote: »

i think crystallisation of floating charges will come up due to the change in the law with the jd brian case.im sure they get bored asking same questions correcting same answers so I hope that something that is fresh they will want to ask about it

What's the Change in the law if you don't mind me asking?

ladadidadi234

Hi,

So sitting here daydreaming when I should be studying constitutional. Can someone just let me know if these topics are enough or if I should including more ?

Sep of Powers
The Oireachtas
Family & Education
Freedom of Expression
Religious Freedom
Due Course of Law & Due Process
Principles of Judicial Review
Abortion and The Unborn
Property Rights
Equality
Proportionality
Findings of Unconstituitionality

Then in less detail:
Personal Liberty
The Courts

I'm so scared. 2nd time sitting it and I'm freaking out as I passed last time and only resitting as I failed contract!

Tigerbalm1

amomcnico91 wrote: »

20029422 wrote: »

i think crystallisation of floating charges will come up due to the change in the laws with the jd brian case.im sure they get bored asking same questions correcting same answers so I hope that something that is fresh they will want to ask about it

What's the Change in the law if you don't mind me asking?

If I remember correctly, very simply, if a floating charge has properly crystallised prior to winding up the holder will rank ahead of preferential creditors. Also called the Belgard Motors case. You really should look it up prior to the exam as it changed the area and old notes will say the opposite. If you google it I'm sure you can find some short summaries as it is quite an important case.

20029422

amomcnico91 wrote: »

What's the Change in the law if you don't mind me asking?

it was originally that a floating charge that crystallized becoming a fixed charge did not affect statutory priorities but this is now changed from the supreme court decision so they will be paid before revenue,employees,social welfare. it contradicts statutory schemes such as s440 of the 2014 act regarding receivers.

amomcnico91

20029422 wrote: »

it was originally that a floating charge that crystallized becoming a fixed charge did not affect statutory priorities but this is now changed from the supreme court decision so they will be paid before revenue,employees,social welfare. it contradicts statutory schemes such as s440 of the 2014 act regarding receivers.

What topics are you covering

clocks

Hello all,

Some hear'say on the Law of the European Union.

*There has been a new examiner for the past few sessions, so previous trends are less relevant
*Emphasis on essay questions rather than problems
*Difficult to cut topics since there are mixed questions

Some topics to consider :

i 1 or 2 questions on Institutions, General Principles and sources of EU law

ii Essay questions on supremacy and direct effect

iii Locus standi

iv Casenote question : not guaranteed format but appears regularly

v. Equality

(Though when you add in Internal Market law and Competition Law, that's essentially the whole lot!)

Anything I missed ?

Anyone else have thoughts?

Redo91

I hope Tort went ok for everyone! I'm fairly happy with how it went. Got 5 good questions in so hopefully I've done enough. Out of curiosity what approach did people take to question 1? I mentioned product liability, contributory negligence for the girl (not negligent) and that the truck driver swerving was a novus actus interveniens (said guy we were advising was negligent in driving with his eyes closed) so he was the cause of the damage. It was my last question so I sort of rushed it but hoping I was on the right track.

Redhighking

I took the approach that the girl was negligent through causation principles - material contribution test.

20029422

amomcnico91 wrote: »

What topics are you covering

ultra vires will prob be on it.corporate personality,Foss v harbottle and section 212.restriction,disposition of company assets

LordDennys

Redo91 wrote: »

I hope Tort went ok for everyone! I'm fairly happy with how it went. Got 5 good questions in so hopefully I've done enough. Out of curiosity what approach did people take to question 1? I mentioned product liability, contributory negligence for the girl (not negligent) and that the truck driver swerving was a novus actus interveniens (said guy we were advising was negligent in driving with his eyes closed) so he was the cause of the damage. It was my last question so I sort of rushed it but hoping I was on the right track.

Yea the 1st Q through me, I think it looked for causation principles because that's what was said at the end of the question- "who caused the damage", but I went with your approach broadly too, it's the only reason he could have included all that stuff about car safety features.

What was that question about getting locked in on that lane about?? I thought false imprisonment but dunno what else?

Also I think I messed up that question on professional negligence and answered it on negligent misstatement.. Cruel move not basing it on either a medical or solicitor scenario..

Redo91

Redhighking wrote: »

I took the approach that the girl was negligent through causation principles - material contribution test.

Ya it seemed to allow for a few different approaches I think. I said she wasn't liable because she was so young. I used the case of Fleming v Kerry County Council.

Did you do the professional negligence question? I mentioned Roche v Peilow and O'Carroll v Diamond even though they were to do with solicitors. I hope that will be ok.

Redo91

LordDennys wrote: »

Yea the 1st Q through me, I think it looked for causation principles because that's what was said at the end of the question- "who caused the damage", but I went with your approach broadly too, it's the only reason he could have included all that stuff about car safety features.

What was that question about getting locked in on that lane about?? I thought false imprisonment but dunno what else?

Also I think I messed up that question on professional negligence and answered it on negligent misstatement.. Cruel move not basing it on either a medical or solicitor scenario..

Ya I avoid that question. I think that threw a lot of people. I didn't even spot the false imprisnonment aspect of it.

I assumed it was ok to mention principles from cases governing medical and legal professionals that applied broadly to professional negligence. I mentioned the principle in Dunne about an inherent defect in practice. Plus Roche v Peilow as she went along with the practice without "taking thought" because she didn't look up the laws of Haven Island. Also mention O'Carroll v Diamond which involved a solicitors duty to refuse to act until advice is sought (Revenue Commissioners).

There's no case law on tax advisors in the manuals so I assume we were expected to just refer to cases under medical/solicitors negligence as otherwise there is no case law we could have used.

Redhighking

I avoided that question Redo, originally thought it was negligent misstatement but the professional negligence part in the question at the end threw me.

Ended up doing a very brief attempt on question 8 instead.

hullaballoo

Post mortems are not a good idea. You cannot go back and re-sit that exam now so genuinely the best thing you can do is put it to the back of your head and move on to whatever you have next.

odwyer94

For contract I'm studying:

Offer and acceptance

Consideration

Formal requirements

Privity

Capacity

Terms

Exclusion clauses

Consumer contracts

Mistake

Duress

Undue influence

Discharge

Should this be enough? I'm feeling pretty desperate at this stage and wondering if it's even worth doing the exam.

Redo91

hullaballoo wrote: »

Post mortems are not a good idea. You cannot go back and re-sit that exam now so genuinely the best thing you can do is put it to the back of your head and move on to whatever you have next.

I totally agree. Long story but this is the only exam I'm sitting this time around so I've nothing to move on to! :P

XxMCRxBabyxX

I'm very tempted to just not show up tomorrow. I just can't seem to get my head around Company at all. I'm struggling to even force myself to study it tonight. It'll be a write-off whatever happens