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

sophya

dandadub wrote: »

Probably the most difficult and bizarre paper I've sat yet. I feel like I'm destined never go get passed this first three. As someone said to me today imagine as a solicitor someone came to you demanding action against a neighbour for chopping up a beloved tree to make fire wood??

What Tort(s) exactly did this focus on by the way?

I also answered the dolphin question as a general negligence answer focusing mainly on the duty and standard of care owed to Walt by WB Council. Anyone else do something similar?

I was forced to do Q2 because that dolphin question had me confused and the essay questions were awful. I answered it as the guy was liable for trespass to his neighbours land because of the fallen tree and didn't have any possible actions against his neighbour.

missindigo123

chops018 wrote: »

Why in the heck should they provide the material for the exam?

Have you seen the size of the Companies Acts, has to be well over a 1,000 pages. I don't think our €105.00 would cover that.

It's like saying they should provide us the materials like the manuals to study.

You should have had the Succession Act well in advance of the date of the exam so stop blaming the Law Society.

Anyway, good luck in the exam, and do try your best to get it. It is very useful for the Succession questions.

Wow! Chops! Relax, no need to be so tense, it isn't really that big an issue.

I'm sure the Law Society would be happy to bill us if they ever do decide to provide the acts for students. :eek::eek::eek:

chops018

Milkypops wrote: »

hahhahaa damn straight!

how you set for tomorrow chops?

I'm not feeling confident at all. I've gone over it plenty the last two weeks, but I just cannot get my head around this subject fully.

Plus, to add to the stress I couldn't get any time off work and am up to my tonsils with work.

Here's hoping it's a nice paper.

I hope Constitutional goes well for you.. It seems it can be hit or miss regarding nice papers for that. How are you set?

chops018

missindigo123 wrote: »

Wow! Chops! Relax, no need to be so tense, it isn't really that big an issue.

I'm sure the Law Society would be happy to bill us if they ever do decide to provide the acts for students. :eek::eek::eek:

You know, that's actually not a bad idea, and possibly very lucrative for the Law Society.

Put an option when paying for the exam where you can get them to provide the legislation and have it ready for you on the day. You wouldn't get a chance to tab or highlight it though.

safc_pete

Milkypops wrote: »

im leaving out constitutional and international law
liberty and i think thats it really....what do you mean by referenda??

have you done locus standi for challenging constitutionality? and equality is supposed to come up usually as some part of a prob question....also property didnt come up in march and he loves that topic so i wouldnt be surprised if it came up on friday!

I suppose the referenda can be lumped in with SoP. I've done locus standi and jus tertii too. Might have a look over propery & equality too then

Legal125

missindigo123 wrote: »

Wow! Chops! Relax, no need to be so tense, it isn't really that big an issue.

I'm sure the Law Society would be happy to bill us if they ever do decide to provide the acts for students. :eek::eek::eek:

Don't think the law society should have to provide statutes but should at a minimum facilitate students at a stressful time by designating an hour each evening to allow students hand in legislation.

CRM1

dandadub wrote: »

Probably the most difficult and bizarre paper I've sat yet. I feel like I'm destined never go get passed this first three. As someone said to me today imagine as a solicitor someone came to you demanding action against a neighbour for chopping up a beloved tree to make fire wood??

What Tort(s) exactly did this focus on by the way?

I also answered the dolphin question as a general negligence answer focusing mainly on the duty and standard of care owed to Walt by WB Council. Anyone else do something similar?

Keep your head up. There were a few bizarre questions. Look I done the paper in October and was convinced I failed it, I was right but I wasn't as far off passing as I thought I was. You just can't gage it. Try and not let it affect the rest of your preparation.

Milkypops

chops018 wrote: »

I'm not feeling confident at all. I've gone over it plenty the last two weeks, but I just cannot get my head around this subject fully.

Plus, to add to the stress I couldn't get any time off work and am up to my tonsils with work.

Here's hoping it's a nice paper.

I hope Constitutional goes well for you.. It seems it can be hit or miss regarding nice papers for that. How are you set?

am i hope im set for constitutional i mean iv only left small bits and pieces out yanno so fingers crossed that its ok....iv eu aswell ugh but i think thats a bit more predictable than constitutional so hopefully that goes my way too....

you got no time off?? jeez that sucks i got 2 months off and i still could do with more time hahaah

Alfred Borden

chops018 wrote: »

Why in the heck should they provide the material for the exam?

Have you seen the size of the Companies Acts, has to be well over a 1,000 pages. I don't think our €105.00 would cover that.

It's like saying they should provide us the materials like the manuals to study.

You should have had the Succession Act well in advance of the date of the exam so stop blaming the Law Society.

Anyway, good luck in the exam, and do try your best to get it. It is very useful for the Succession questions.

Calm down. Was only an opinion, no need to blow any gaskets. The manuals to study with was a pretty ridiculous comparison too.

chops018

Milkypops wrote: »

am i hope im set for constitutional i mean iv only left small bits and pieces out yanno so fingers crossed that its ok....iv eu aswell ugh but i think thats a bit more predictable than constitutional so hopefully that goes my way too....

you got no time off?? jeez that sucks i got 2 months off and i still could do with more time hahaah

Well I got a week off for the exam in March, so I suppose they felt that was enough.

I managed to get Const and EU in the same sitting, I don't know how, so here's hoping it goes the same for you.

Raf32 wrote: »

Calm down. Was only an opinion, no need to blow any gaskets. The manuals to study with was a pretty ridiculous comparison too.

Considering the Companies Acts (both new and second hand) are more expensive than the course manuals kinda shows it wasn't a ridiculous comparison!

I'm not blowing any gaskets

Anyway. Back to the study.

Alfred Borden

We will agree to disagree so :pac:

LawCQ91

What is everyone concentrating on for company? Probably abit late at this stage to ask this question but ya .. anyone?

Eyespy

Best of luck to everyone in this sitting 😄

Raf if you're in the Carlow area I can lend you the Succession Act for Thursday. Hate to see a fellow FE1 seeker struggle.

saor19

LawCQ91 wrote: »

What is everyone concentrating on for company? Probably abit late at this stage to ask this question but ya .. anyone?

Sep Legal Personality
Ostensible Authority
Directors Common Law Duties
s.29 & s.31
SH Remedies
Restriction and Disqualification
Reckless and Fraudulent Trading
Share Transfer
Distribution of Assets
Receivership

Hopefully thats enough, I have ultra vires and membership and shares if I'm really desperate!

chops018

Raf32 wrote: »

We will agree to disagree so :pac:

Haha, we will

LawCQ91 wrote: »

What is everyone concentrating on for company? Probably abit late at this stage to ask this question but ya .. anyone?

Everything.

I know the bigger, main areas well (I think - I blanked a lot and confused myself in March).

Then the smaller area's I'm shady on but I have covered them. He seems to always throw in a couple of poorly phrased questions and on niche areas.

I'm leaving out Liquidation as a full essay came up on s.213 and inability to pay debts in March. Highly unlikely to come up again. Left out Receivership too as I hate that topic.

You?

Alfred Borden

Eyespy wrote: »

Best of luck to everyone in this sitting 😄

Raf if you're in the Carlow area I can lend you the Succession Act for Thursday. Hate to see a fellow FE1 seeker struggle.

Thanks a million, i have just actually got one there now. Thank you very much though.

Eyespy

Raf32 wrote: »

Thanks a million, i have just actually got one there now. Thank you very much though.

No bother, best of luck Thursday

Alfred Borden

Eyespy wrote: »

No bother, best of luck Thursday

Thank you, same to you too!

LawCQ91

chops018 wrote: »

Haha, we will



Everything.

I know the bigger, main areas well (I think - I blanked a lot and confused myself in March).

Then the smaller area's I'm shady on but I have covered them. He seems to always throw in a couple of poorly phrased questions and on niche areas.

I'm leaving out Liquidation as a full essay came up on s.213 and inability to pay debts in March. Highly unlikely to come up again. Left out Receivership too as I hate that topic.

You?

I am leaving out
Disqualification, reckless/fraudulent trading/ receivership /examinership/ members and shares ( general), UV, memo/article chapter/ meetings/ Accounts/ model regulation 80( can't even find it in the manual!) liquidation ( except for 213(f) / inspections

Bit risky ? But I am gonna have the act with me so if I was that unlucky , I can rewrite the act

I am trying to cover everything else other the topics I just mentioned

Debbie

Quick question on Commorientes - now that s5 of the Succession Act has been amended by s68 of the Civil Law (Misc. Provs) Act 2008 - so that JT's who die simultaneously hold the prop. in Tenancy in Common immediately before death, does that mean their successors take it in Tenancy in Common now or is it still taken as a Joint Tenancy?

My manual doesn't mention anything about the 2008 act so I'm worried its not up to date!

Legal125

Debbie wrote: »

Quick question on Commorientes - now that s5 of the Succession Act has been amended by s68 of the Civil Law (Misc. Provs) Act 2008 - so that JT's who die simultaneously hold the prop. in Tenancy in Common immediately before death, does that mean their successors take it in Tenancy in Common now or is it still taken as a Joint Tenancy?

My manual doesn't mention anything about the 2008 act so I'm worried its not up to date!

They take as TIC, easier because as tenants in common property can take effect as per any will of the deceased.

Debbie

Thanks a mill - are there any cases that confirm that that you know of?

Legal125

Debbie wrote: »

Thanks a mill - are there any cases that confirm that that you know of?

No worries.It's statutory - they take as TIC.s5 2008 act

Legal125

Can anyone tell me whether successive squatters can cont adverse poss. Mount Carmel investments says yes. Is there a relevant statutory section? Can't find it think there is😖

Debbie

Legal125 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me whether successive squatters can cont adverse poss. Mount Carmel investments says yes. Is there a relevant statutory section? Can't find it think there is😖

Section 18 of the Statute of Limitations!

saor19

Can anyone tell me whether a share transfer is valid if not stamped by revenue?

Legal125

Debbie wrote: »

Section 18 of the Statute of Limitations!

Under that does it mean once in AP time runs so successive squatters are ok or am I understanding s18 correctly...thanks.

safc_pete

Legal125 wrote: »

Under that does it mean once in AP time runs so successive squatters are ok or am I understanding s18 correctly...thanks.

I believe you are correct. Once the property is in adverse possession for the required period, once that period is up whoever is in AP at that time will obtain title.

Debbie

safc_pete wrote: »

I believe you are correct. Once the property is in adverse possession for the required period, once that period is up whoever is in AP at that time will obtain title.

Yep the land just has to be adversely possessed, it doesn't matter by who. Case I'm using is Mount Carmel v Peter Thurlow too...

safc_pete

Debbie wrote: »

Yep the land just has to be adversely possessed, it doesn't matter by who. Case I'm using is Mount Carmel v Peter Thurlow too...

If A holds a property in AP for 11 years and 11 months but then leaves and B comes in and holds it in AP for the final month, B will obtain title of the property.