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

Gunslinger92

20029422 wrote: »

does anyone know why there is a week gap I done equity and company now I've loads a time off.only wondering why it's like this

Wondering this myself, the dates for this sitting are set out in an odd way. I know the PPC1 exams are starting next week and they're also in the red cow, I'm guessing it's to do with that

ak4321

Had company today so just facing into EU now for the first time since Tuesday. Covering 10 topics as well as case notes. Haven't done any of the free movements yet bar fmg, would it be madness to try and do one of the others from scratch? And if so which one?

TheCrutzer

ak4321 wrote: »

Had company today so just facing into EU now for the first time since Tuesday. Covering 10 topics as well as case notes. Haven't done any of the free movements yet bar fmg, would it be madness to try and do one of the others from scratch? And if so which one?

I honestly don't find workers to be too bad, and if your doing citizenship it ties in with that.

nuac

Mod
Guys, pls do not comment on examiners. They are people too,

Ferry.Man

Any predictions from the prep courses on the key topics for tomorrow??

castle123

Can someone please advise what the topics were for each of the 8 questions on the Tort October 2016 exam? Thanks

the great communicator

I've arrived to the red cow and the parking charges are tantamount to sodomy so be warned!

sunshine and showers

the great communicator wrote: »

I've arrived to the red cow and the parking charges are tantamount to sodomy so be warned!

At the hotel? Never once had to pay to park there.

Robbie25808

Sean, Shane, Ray and Eoin are four friends who live in Donegal. All are unemployed and in need of
some money to go on their holidays to Magaluf. The four friends decided to break-in to the house of a
wealthy lawyer, Lawrence, who lives in Letterkenny. They agreed that they would steal all the
valuables that they could find and would share the spoils. They also agreed that they would not use
any force during the break-in, though each man brought a large wrench with him for protection. The
plan was that Shane would not enter the house - he would remain in the car outside, and would act
as the getaway driver.
On the night of the break-in, Shane parked the getaway car near Lawrence's house. Sean, Ray and
Eoin got out of the car and approached the house. At this point Sean's conscience got the better of
him. He decided to go home, telling the other men that he had a migraine. Ray and Eoin decided to
continue with their plan. They entered the house by breaking a window on the ground floor. They
started to put all the valuables they could find into bin bags. They were just about to leave, when Ray
decided to go upstairs to 'mess up Lawrence'. Eoin pleaded with him not to, but Ray ignored him. He
went upstairs and hit Lawrence repeatedly with the wrench. He then locked Lawrence in his own
bathroom. Ray and Eoin then left the house with the bags of valuables. They got into the car driven
by Shane and drove away at high speed.
Lawrence was badly hurt, but he knew that his three young children were sleeping in their bedrooms.
Unaware that Ray and Eoin had left his house, he decided to try to get out the upstairs bathroom
window and climb across the roof to one of his daughter's bedrooms. Unfortunately he slipped and fell
to the ground. He died from the injuries he suffered in the fall.
Advise Sean, Shane, Ray and Eoin on their possible criminal liability.

In relation to all these questions:
Do you first consider murder? Intent to kill or seriously harm? Then go on and discuss manslaughter?

Also, in this question as murder is intnetion to kill or cause serious harm surely cracking some lad in the face with a wrench is serious harm so could amount to murder?
If he doesnt reach this threshold would it then be assault manslaughter?

shellbm

I know the Mods said avoid post-mortems but literally I can't focus thinking about a question on the company paper yesterday. For the Director Duties question I answered the question saying there was a breach under 228 (f) (conflict of interest) rather than 228 (d)(not to use company property etc) . I used all the right cases however - well the ones mentioned in the exam report when that question came up previously.

Will the examiner be able to give me any attempt marks at all or would be more or less obliged to give me zero for the whole question??

Robbo

Robbie25808 wrote: »

In relation to all these questions:
Do you first consider murder? Intent to kill or seriously harm? Then go on and discuss manslaughter?

Also, in this question as murder is intnetion to kill or cause serious harm surely cracking some lad in the face with a wrench is serious harm so could amount to murder?
If he doesnt reach this threshold would it then be assault manslaughter?

Always have murder as your starting point if there's a corpse involved in the question, even where the expected conclusion is going to be manslaughter.

Remember, there's a rebuttable presumption that a person accused of murder intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

Redo91

shellbm wrote: »

I know the Mods said avoid post-mortems but literally I can't focus thinking about a question on the company paper yesterday. For the Director Duties question I answered the question saying there was a breach under 228 (f) (conflict of interest) rather than 228 (d)(not to use company property etc) . I used all the right cases however - well the ones mentioned in the exam report when that question came up previously.

Will the examiner be able to give me any attempt marks at all or would be more or less obliged to give me zero for the whole question??

Well you still referred to statute as requested and there was obviously a conflict of interest so you were right to mention that. If you had the cases too you will be losing out on very little marks I'd imagine.

I'm in the exact same boat regarding post mortems don't worry! Still thinking about that Foss v Harbottle question. I came out of the exam thinking I nailed it and now I think I failed it. I still think it was poorly worded although I know the examiner was looking for us to discuss Foss v Harbottle. Seems strange to state it's important when clearly most actions are under S 212 these days. Please tell me this has happened before to people where they've answered the wrong topic on a question and still passed?! It doesn't help that my next exam isn't until Constitutional next Friday. Struggling to get motivated for that when it's so get away!

the great communicator

sunshine and showers wrote: »

At the hotel? Never once had to pay to park there.

Yeah was 8€
Exam was grand though so I'm ok with it

odwyer94

...and I thought company was hard!!!

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

Well you still referred to statute as requested and there was obviously a conflict of interest so you were right to mention that. If you had the cases too you will be losing out on very little marks I'd imagine.

I'm in the exact same boat regarding post mortems don't worry! Still thinking about that Foss v Harbottle question. I came out of the exam thinking I nailed it and now I think I failed it. I still think it was poorly worded although I know the examiner was looking for us to discuss Foss v Harbottle. Seems strange to state it's important when clearly most actions are under S 212 these days. Please tell me this has happened before to people where they've answered the wrong topic on a question and still passed?! It doesn't help that my next exam isn't until Constitutional next Friday. Struggling to get motivated for that when it's so get away!

I applied Regal Hastings v Gulliver, Industrial Developments v Cooley, Moore v M'Glynn, Peso Silver Mines ltd v Cropper, Aerospace v Thompson, Spring Grove Services v O'Callaghan etc and cited 232 for the remedy but just terrified he won't be able to give any marks as i named the wrong duty. Kicking myself.

I would imagine if you interpreted the question one way there were at least another 50 who did the same. That's the only comfort to me at the moment !!

Redo91

shellbm wrote: »

I applied Regal Hastings v Gulliver, Industrial Developments v Cooley, Moore v M'Glynn, Peso Silver Mines ltd v Cropper, Aerospace v Thompson, Spring Grove Services v O'Callaghan etc and cited 232 for the remedy but just terrified he won't be able to give any marks as i named the wrong duty. Kicking myself.

I would imagine if you interpreted the question one way there were at least another 50 who did the same. That's the only comfort to me at the moment !!

I mentioned Spring Grove, Irish Microforms and Gencor v Dalby. Should really have mentioned Regal Hastings too now that you mention it. Of course he will give you marks. You mentioned all those cases. You weren't too far off the mark with the duty you mentioned and it did apply to the question.

That's true. I mean even people that answered it on Foss v Harbottle said that they began their answer by saying it wasn't very relevant any more. How can you begin an answer by saying that and then be expected to talk about how it is still important? It's a complete contradiction. I feel like I argued my point well but don't know how many marks he will be able give me if in his eyes I was supposed to answer the question on Foss.

OMGWACA

Hey, hope everyone is surviving these! I've Equity done and Contract and Criminal to do. I know contract is literally anyone's call and it is stressing me out to the absolute max even the thought of it, but does anyone have advice/tips etc for either? Even what to really focus on the day before etc! I'm willing to hedge my bets!

anosullivan

Wow that was a really hard paper! Absolutely no choice and bringing up mergers and monetary policy- even the case notes were tricky

BASHBAG

Hey,

Would it be crazy to leave out Consumer Protection for contract. I have yet to look at the chapter and the thought of another technical statutory legislation heavy topic is killing my motivation.

Plus I don't have the acts yet.

Cheers for any reply

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

I mentioned Spring Grove, Irish Microforms and Gencor v Dalby. Should really have mentioned Regal Hastings too now that you mention it. Of course he will give you marks. You mentioned all those cases. You weren't too far off the mark with the duty you mentioned and it did apply to the question.

That's true. I mean even people that answered it on Foss v Harbottle said that they began their answer by saying it wasn't very relevant any more. How can you begin an answer by saying that and then be expected to talk about how it is still important? It's a complete contradiction. I feel like I argued my point well but don't know how many marks he will be able give me if in his eyes I was supposed to answer the question on Foss.

It seems to me like you really engaged with the actual question asked though? You considered the statement and disagreed and gave your reasons why you disagreed. I would imagine that is totally a different ball game to someone who wasn't at all familiar with the Rule in Foss v Harbottle so answered it on s212. Seems like you knew the rule, acknowledged it and then argued your point.

Im in the same boat with constitutional - just need to get the head down now and put all my company books in the attic.. out of sight out of mind !!

odwyer94

anosullivan wrote: »

Wow that was a really hard paper! Absolutely no choice and bringing up mergers and monetary policy- even the case notes were tricky

Yep that was pretty tough alright. I hadn't enough prepared so a definite fail for me but even others (who were presumably better prepared than i) seemed to think it was a horrible paper...

On a side note did anyone find the door screeching really annoying or was that just me?

the great communicator

shellbm wrote: »

I know the Mods said avoid post-mortems but literally I can't focus thinking about a question on the company paper yesterday. For the Director Duties question I answered the question saying there was a breach under 228 (f) (conflict of interest) rather than 228 (d)(not to use company property etc) . I used all the right cases however - well the ones mentioned in the exam report when that question came up previously.

Will the examiner be able to give me any attempt marks at all or would be more or less obliged to give me zero for the whole question??

I passed company last time with 66 so even in the worst case scenario where you got 0 for that question (you didn't) you could have still handily passed. I'm no genius either, he's a fair marker.

louser1

odwyer94 wrote: »

Yep that was pretty tough alright. I hadn't enough prepared so a definite fail for me but even others (who were presumably better prepared than i) seemed to think it was a horrible paper...

On a side note did anyone find the door screeching really annoying or was that just me?

Any chance you could say what came up, I was suppose to do it but chickened out so I'm doing my own post-mortem here.
Thanks

BASHBAG

shellbm wrote: »

It seems to me like you really engaged with the actual question asked though? You considered the statement and disagreed and gave your reasons why you disagreed. I would imagine that is totally a different ball game to someone who wasn't at all familiar with the Rule in Foss v Harbottle so answered it on s212. Seems like you knew the rule, acknowledged it and then argued your point.

Im in the same boat with constitutional - just need to get the head down now and put all my company books in the attic.. out of sight out of mind !!

In fairness, you were asked to discuss the statement, not verify that the statement is true. I approached it be saying it wasn't really relevant anymore and then spent much more time explaining that 212 is far more applicable in modern corporate law.

I agree that the examiner will most likely be looking to see if you understood the statement and you were able to form a logical opinion on it.

That's what I'm hoping anyway.

claiomh solais

Definitely a challenging paper. I got my 5 answers down so I'm walking away mildly happy. Here's hoping I passed, but that was one hard paper. No choice, and no competition law was a disappointment too.

Shout-outs to the arse who decided to do some hammering in the other room and whoever was messing around with that squeaky door!

SoulSearchR

That's mad, we didn't have to pay wed. barriers were up in car park on the left. They are capitalising on our misery so!

Redo91

BASHBAG wrote: »

In fairness, you were asked to discuss the statement, not verify that the statement is true. I approached it be saying it wasn't really relevant anymore and then spent much more time explaining that 212 is far more applicable in modern corporate law.

I agree that the examiner will most likely be looking to see if you understood the statement and you were able to form a logical opinion on it.

That's what I'm hoping anyway.

Wait so you took the same approach as me? I said that the more substantive criteria, various options open to the courts to deal with the issue and the fact that proceedings can be held in camera, and Re Via Networks which stated any shareholder can bring an action under 212, all mean that in modern times an oppressed shareholder would bring an application under S 212 rather than a derivative action. I referred back to derivative actions just to compare how they were inferior under each of these headings. However I never went into the case of Foss v Harbottle in any detail or mentioned the case of Wallersteiner v Moir in relation to derivative actions.

I hope the examiner was looking for people to take this approach because I don't know how anyone can say derivative actions are still important. Even if the examiner wasn't looking for this maybe if enough people took this approach he will realise how the question could have been interpreted in this way.

Edit: Had a look at the paper again (I know I should be moving on). It says on the question to "discuss this statement". Not saying people who just spoke about dervivative actions were wrong but clearly the examiner was leaving it open to us to disagree with the statement.

BASHBAG

Redo91 wrote: »

Wait so you took the same approach as me? I said that the more substantive criteria, various options open to the courts to deal with the issue and the fact that proceedings can be held in camera, and Re Via Networks which stated any shareholder can bring an action under 212, all mean that in modern times an oppressed shareholder would bring an application under S 212 rather than a derivative action. I referred back to derivative actions just to compare how they were inferior under each of these headings. However I never went into the case of Foss v Harbottle in any detail or mentioned the case of Wallersteiner v Moir in relation to derivative actions.

I hope the examiner was looking for people to take this approach because I don't know how anyone can say derivative actions are still important. Even if the examiner wasn't looking for this maybe if enough people took this approach he will realise how the question could have been interpreted in this way.

Ya it sounds like we went about it the same way. I just touched on the facts of foss v harbottle to outline the rule, and then gave maybe a case or two for each of the exceptions. Argued then that the exceptions were too specific and that it is far easier for a minority SH to bring proceedings under 212 etc.,

Hopefully we were on the mark but sure it's done now anyway, have to put it in the past and move on.

Robbie25808

Robbo wrote: »

Always have murder as your starting point if there's a corpse involved in the question, even where the expected conclusion is going to be manslaughter.

Remember, there's a rebuttable presumption that a person accused of murder intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

Great, and if its a rebuttable presumption, how could he rebut it in this case?

Yoop

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

Would it be crazy to leave out Consumer Protection for contract. I have yet to look at the chapter and the thought of another technical statutory legislation heavy topic is killing my motivation.

Plus I don't have the acts yet.

Cheers for any reply

I left it out and passed fine. You'll still have five out of seven to choose.