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

bigtophat13

Teamhrach wrote: »

^ I'd say those topics are bang on!

Make sure you add in NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSE TRUSTS! Going by past reports people get caught out on that.

For constructive trusts, the FE1 focus has been on the New Model (aka Remedial) CT, and Strangers to a trust; so we probably shouldn't have too big of hopes of fiduciaries appearing (I saw your post about hoping that was what came up!) I think the fiduciaries-style question appeared once or twice? Cover it by all means but not to the exclusion of the other ways it has been examined.

Oh yes, if it's a problem question they could well pop in non charitable and even then they could have them as a part of the note question like before. Darn, I was hoping to leave out the strangers but I guess that's on the (long) list for next week!

bigtophat13

jus_me wrote: »

Negotiate in good faith? Oh god what topic can that be found in.

I just did it today so -

The most important cases are:
-Cadbury v Kerry coco - honest negotiations not binding
-Walford v Miles - V important and said generally lack certainty but sometimes it's ok like lock out clauses for consideration. (agreeing to deal with them exclusively)
-Triatic v Cork coco held that there could be an agreement to negotiate in the case of a lock out clause that was properly defined and consideration was given
-Flynn & Benray v Breccia was a recent case where they held there was no need for a general implied duty to negotiate in good faith.

So you'd have to say that generally there is none but in cases that are specific like lock out clauses for consideration they may be ok.

And other things like "reasonable endeavours" which are actually part of the contract are more inclined to be upheld!

jus_me

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I just did it today so -

The most important cases are:
-Cadbury v Kerry coco - honest negotiations not binding
-Walford v Miles - V important and said generally lack certainty but sometimes it's ok like lock out clauses for consideration. (agreeing to deal with them exclusively)
-Triatic v Cork coco held that there could be an agreement to negotiate in the case of a lock out clause that was properly defined and consideration was given
-Flynn & Benray v Breccia was a recent case where they held there was no need for a general implied duty to negotiate in good faith.

So you'd have to say that generally there is none but in cases that are specific like lock out clauses for consideration they may be ok.

And other things like "reasonable endeavours" which are actually part of the contract are more inclined to be upheld!

Thanks a mill!!! Do u know what heading it all falls under in a manual if I was to look for it

yournerd

TCPIP wrote: »

By any chance does anyone have the 2015 Autumn company paper and report? I'd be very appreciative!

I do!

yournerd

Twinings2016 wrote: »

Does anyone have Spring 2018 property paper and examiners report?? Would be very grateful!

I do!

yournerd

lawlad101 wrote: »

It used to be like that.

The FE-1s are used to slow the rate of people qualifying.

It’s actually cause of some Northern Ireland idiot that the FE1 are mandatory ugh

Teamhrach

yournerd wrote: »

It’s actually cause of some Northern Ireland idiot that the FE1 are mandatory ugh

And they have the same exam for barristers and solicitors. Their degree classification is taken into account. It's tick the box on criminal, land and tort, and then a maths test! :rolleyes:

frankiejoepat

Does anyone have notes or sample answers on registration of charges in the context of corp borrwing?
Just realised that it comes up as much as fixed charges with regard to its reform in the new Act.

I don't think I'm going to get these three. Bridge too far.

Anyone know the pass rates for contract and equity?
Company is around the 65% mark usually.

FE1 Lady

Quick Q - Did Many Sit Prep Courses for these Exams? Am I the only person who just bought material? This would put my mind at ease if any kind individual could enlighten me?

iamanengine

What impact does repeal of the 8th have on intentional destruction of unborn human life for criminal? The cases in my manual all revolve around the 8th amendment so not sure what I would talk about now it's repealed...

TCPIP

I would imagine in instances where its not carried out within a medical procedure? An easy problem scenario is a drunken boyfriend angry at girlfriend for pregnancy, stabs pregnant girlfriend; she lives, foetus dies. Advise drunken boyfriend. So that'd be a question on defences, etc...

Vegetarian2017

Some people do some don't. Probably better to do them if u haven't studied law before. I didn't do them nor did many i know. More a case of having the finances to be honest.

Vegetarian2017

Anybody know where i can buy legislation. Sorry was a few years back since i bought which was place off Dawson street not sure if it is there anymore. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Vegetarian2017

FE1 Lady wrote:

Quick Q - Did Many Sit Prep Courses for these Exams? Am I the only person who just bought material? This would put my mind at ease if any kind individual could enlighten me?

Sorry my reply is above it didn't quote you for some reason when i replied

Leraf

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Anybody know where i can buy legislation. Sorry was a few years back since i bought which was place off Dawson street not sure if it is there anymore. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

office of public works.

Ngannou54

FE1 Lady wrote: »

Quick Q - Did Many Sit Prep Courses for these Exams? Am I the only person who just bought material? This would put my mind at ease if any kind individual could enlighten me?

I've passed 5 and I just bought materials. I couldn't afford prep courses. All my materials are second hand from donedeal.

mariealice

Does anyone have recent sample answers (2014/2015/2016) for company? Could swap for tort and constitutional sample answers?

Fuguestate

For Tort, so far I'm going in with:

Negligence
Ryands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Person
Vicarious Liability
Occupier's Liability
Passing Off
Defamation
Negligent Misstatement.

What else should I include?

Heart Shaped Box

Could anyone weigh in on whether this is enough for Company??


- Types of companies
- Formation & registration
- Consequences of incorporation
- Company constitution
- SLP
- Corporate authority/ultra vires
- Shares & Membership
- Share Transfer
- Shareholder Remedies
- Director's duties (including duties on insolvency)
- Restriction & disqualification
- Legislative control of transactions
- Receivership
- Winding up


I know it's bad to leave out capital maintenance/registration of charges/debentures given that they come up so regularly but I just can't get my head around them at all and have given up..
Should i replace throw in another topic to replace it? Examinership or meetings or something?

Thanks

TCPIP

That's fairly comprehensive. I've gone with:

Company types;
Incorporation/The Veil
Authority
Director's Duties
Restriction/Disqualification
SAP
Liquidation
Charges.

Natalie_06

Looking for property solutions anyone? Can swap other materials as sitting 4 exams! please pm

user115

Anyone think its safe enough to leave out exclusion clauses in contract?

curlyheadedfck

user115 wrote: »

Anyone think its safe enough to leave out exclusion clauses in contract?

I wouldn't have thought so. It's been on every paper for the past 4 years bar 2 sittings.

iamanengine

Fuguestate wrote: »

For Tort, so far I'm going in with:

Negligence
Ryands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Person
Vicarious Liability
Occupier's Liability
Passing Off
Defamation
Negligent Misstatement.

What else should I include?

My list is very similar, except I'm not doing Defamation and am doing Medical Negligence and Liability for Animals.

HappySlappy123

iamanengine wrote: »

My list is very similar, except I'm not doing Defamation and am doing Medical Negligence and Liability for Animals.

Likewise, only I'm throwing in concurrent wrongdoers also. It was on the October 17 paper, but the examiner noted how it was quite unpopular so it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility if it appeared again

BeepBoopBot

For the love of the Treaty of Rome will someone send me an EU grid

iamanengine

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Likewise, only I'm throwing in concurrent wrongdoers also. It was on the October 17 paper, but the examiner noted how it was quite unpopular so it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility if it appeared again

How confident are you on having 5 topics come up? I feel like I'm covering loads but still pretty worried about leaving the likes of Defamation and Damages out...though surely they are due a break.

Frances456

iamanengine wrote: »

How confident are you on having 5 topics come up? I feel like I'm covering loads but still pretty worried about leaving the likes of Defamation and Damages out...though surely they are due a break.

I'm doing damages just in case - it's appeared on nearly every paper recently.

HappySlappy123

iamanengine wrote: »

How confident are you on having 5 topics come up? I feel like I'm covering loads but still pretty worried about leaving the likes of Defamation and Damages out...though surely they are due a break.

Reasonably confident. As an earlier poster pointed out, VL and OL have both seen developments in the past 18 months and so combined with being due anyway, you would have to imagine are good bets to come up. You have to go back to 2013 for a land based Tort not to come up in a calendar year, you can pretty much always be guaranteed a Q on negligence in some shape or form, trespass to the person has come up every year since 2012 (maybe longer, but my grid doesn't go back any further), while the likes of passing off, liability for animals and fire, and medical negligence are also well overdue.

In short, I think we would need to be completely and utterly shafted not to see 5 Qs on the paper.

TCPIP

Does anyone know when we might actually get the results of this round actually?