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

LawGuy2016

laurenburne wrote: »

LawGuy2016 wrote: »

How did people find EU?

For the competition law question 8A, I wrote about Agreement Concertrd practice and decision. However, I mixed it all up.

I wrote what I learned for concerted practice under then heading decision and then incorrectly waffled on a bit for for decision as I couldn't remember information on that. It should be clear I mixed the concerted practice bit up. Basically I kept using the word decision for concerted practice when what I was discussing was clearly a concerted practice. I wonder will I get marks for this part of the question or be graded out of 4.5/5, given the only correct information in it refers to what an agreement is?

So annoyed at myself. What did I look at my notes after the exam??!!

You will definitely get some marks. Don't stress. I passed company and constitutional with three good answers ..like good. .not excellent...and two absolutely clutching at straws questions with no case law. Not joking. You never know what way these go.

iI don't know why but when I looked at the art 30 and 34 question it was as if i never seen anything like it before..I got all confused despite having studied this chapter quite well. It's funny what lack of sleep can do.

How did people answer this question?

I thought the citizenship question was tough.

Thank you SO much for that. Just what I needed to hear. It's much appreciated. Hopefully, things will go ok. I did three ok questions (1) Direct Effect and MSL, (2) FMOG, (3) Judicial Review. My fourth was pretty waffly and short on Equality, although I still managed to hit a few relevant points. And then my fifth was on decision concerted practice etc and 102. Hopefully I did enough to pass anyway.

Yohnathan

Sorry, I know Property was yesterday but for the revocation part of the succesion question, did people say the will wasn't revoked as per the 1965 Act and then completely avoid the husbands Legal Right Share as it was valid and then discuss the daughters possibility through Section 117?

That is how I approached the revocation part anyway but I see some conflicting views and wonder if people actually had a case to say the will was revoked. I was too tired to ask this yesterday..

Best of luck to the Equity people also!

Rebelgirl87

Feels like l am looking at Equity for the very first time!!! Not good!!!

binkevii

same here....

Flamingo125

Same!!!!😰

Lindyloo 1

binkevii wrote: »

same here....

Me too, only have a handle on estoppel, undue influence, charitable trusts, secret trusts, and mandatory interlocutory injunctions! Nothing else will stick so very tight for tomorrow! Any advice welcome!

Snakeydoogey

Rebelgirl87 wrote: »

Feels like l am looking at Equity for the very first time!!! Not good!!!

Having a shocker here too! I want to go back in time to a week ago and slap myself in the face! Or just put the correct lottery numbers on and never do an exam again.Ever.

odwyer94

Me too! Going to have some serious difficulty remembering cases especially...

binkevii

*** Me too, only have a handle on estoppel, undue influence, charitable trusts, secret trusts, and mandatory interlocutory injunctions! Nothing else will stick so very tight for tomorrow! Any advice welcome!****

that's a lot! compared to me

Gunslinger92

Yohnathan wrote: »

Sorry, I know Property was yesterday but for the revocation part of the succesion question, did people say the will wasn't revoked as per the 1965 Act and then completely avoid the husbands Legal Right Share as it was valid and then discuss the daughters possibility through Section 117?

That is how I approached the revocation part anyway but I see some conflicting views and wonder if people actually had a case to say the will was revoked. I was too tired to ask this yesterday..

Best of luck to the Equity people also!

I said that the second will was invalid cause she didn't sign it.

I also said the first will wasn't revoked properly because Monica would've had to have been with joey when he destroyed it.

Then I wasn't sure myself if the first one was valid or not I said it possibly wasn't because it arguably hadn't been witnessed properly.

So I gave advice based on both the original will being valid (LRS and electing to take it or not, daughter getting nothing in a s.117 application because monica supported her through college) and on Monica being intestate

No idea if I was right, mind

Gunslinger92

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

Me too, only have a handle on estoppel, undue influence, charitable trusts, secret trusts, and mandatory interlocutory injunctions! Nothing else will stick so very tight for tomorrow! Any advice welcome!

Three certainties is quite easy you'd get that covered tonight. Strong v bird too.

starbar91

Sorry guys, just need reassurance I have enough for tomorrow, if someone could please advise:
Rectification
Spec Perf
Charitable trusts
Secret trusts
Quia Timet
Interlocutory
3 certainties (is this a question on its own?)
Rescission(incl undue influence)

Any thoughts greatly appreciated. Having last min horrors here

The Talking Bread

starbar91 wrote: »

Sorry guys, just need reassurance I have enough for tomorrow, if someone could please advise:
Rectification
Spec Perf
Charitable trusts
Secret trusts
Quia Timet
Interlocutory
3 certainties (is this a question on its own?)
Rescission(incl undue influence)

Any thoughts greatly appreciated. Having last min horrors here

Would be shocked if you didnt have enough.

TheCrutzer

The three certainties can come up on their own. An essay question can come up where the first line talks about a situation regarding certainty of intention and then the line underneath it will ask you to rexplain the need for certainty of intention and refer to one other certainty etc. They can also be included in a problem question so always be on the lookout for them.

Gunslinger92

Stupid question time lads I'm blaming the lack of sleep!

How do you know if a question is about mandatory interlocutory injunctions or quia timet? Is it just a quia timet is restraining an ongoing or anticipated wrong?

starbar91

Thanks all. TheTalkingBread's predictions A1 so far so that's a relief

odwyer94

Right, all I have are injunctions, SP, estoppel, rectification, undue influence and charitable trusts so I'm praying for a miracle. Will try to have a look over 3 certainties in the morning if possible but hopefully I'll be as lucky as I was with Property.

Best of luck everyone!

TheCrutzer

Gunslinger 92

An injunction is q.t if the violation is threatened or if the violation has already occurred and the P fears its reoccurrence. The essence of a q.t injunction is simply "because he fears.

I think that's what your asking?

Tigerbalm1

Can someone give me a very quick summary of doctrine of satisfaction? I know it sometimes comes up in the note q.

I studied it before but can't remember what it is at all and can't find it in the notes so just to jog the memory.

The Talking Bread

Tigerbalm1 wrote: »

Can someone give me a very quick summary of doctrine of satisfaction? I know it sometimes comes up in the note q.

I studied it before but can't remember what it is at all and can't find it in the notes so just to jog the memory.

http://www.slideshare.net/AhmadFarouqAmir/equitable-doctrines-12601679

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

http://www.slideshare.net/AhmadFarouqAmir/equitable-doctrines-12601679

they are pretty cr!p ones! just google a few more. it'll stick in your head in no time

ak4321

Am I right in saying there isn't much more to QT injunctions than those few cases like Manchester and Szabo etc? Spry says the principles are the same for both so essentially it'll be interlocutory standards for both? Be that mandatory or prohibitory, or maybe I'm missing something?

claiomh solais

When are results typically out? Not for a few months I suppose?

Also cheers to this great thread for getting me through my first time. Lots of great info.

starbar91

FINISHED!!!!!

Thanks a mill everyone for the help! Not a bad equity paper at all

Special thanks to TalkingBread and Gunslinger- I owe you guys several pints

Gunslinger92

Freedom!!!!

Yis are a sound bunch, I owe those of ye who talked me into doing charitable trusts a pint I'd have been screwed if I didn't bother with it!!

To the pub :pac:

XxMCRxBabyxX

Well done everyone. They're finally over!

Dunne1995

Was anyone told when to expect results?

XxMCRxBabyxX

Dunne1995 wrote: »

Was anyone told when to expect results?

It's normally the Friday six weeks later so 25th Nov or thereabouts

KT_94

Question 6 was a quia timet injunction problem question, unlikely to come up again so if you're covering injunctions, mareva and a brief look at interlocutory should cover you.

20029422

KT_94 wrote: »

Question 6 was a quia timet injunction problem question, unlikely to come up again so if you're covering injunctions, mareva and a brief look at interlocutory should cover you.

i covered the injunctions you mentioned I've left out estoppel, rescission ,constructive trusts, co-habitants and chapter with satisfaction and that I feel like I've covered a lot with the 11 topics I've covered but don't want to take risks like last time.