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

BeepBoopBot

If anyone has sample answers and grid for eu i have sample answers for 2012-2014 equity

jewels652

Hello asking for a friend
What are the predictions for equity? Please

holliek

What was the new approach regarding statutory illegality which was found in the Supreme Court in Quinn v IBRC?

byrne7

BeepBoopBot wrote: »

If anyone has sample answers and grid for eu i have sample answers for 2012-2014 equity

I would greatly appreciate same. Particularly for FMO workers as I seriously need to cut my notes for that. Also, any predications for equity at all as I am leaving most of the learning until the night before as I have to get through the EU and criminal course before then. I am just going to have to take a massive risk with equity and hope for the best ... The joys of working until the week of the exam ...

yournerd

holliek wrote: »

What was the new approach regarding statutory illegality which was found in the Supreme Court in Quinn v IBRC?

if the contract is for an illegal activity, it will not always be void. the courts will look to enforce the intention of the legislature.

holliek

yournerd wrote: »

if the contract is for an illegal activity, it will not always be void. the courts will look to enforce the intention of the legislature.

lifesaver thank you!

Gunslinger92

FE1 Lady wrote: »

Did you base your question on William and Anne on rights of the unmarried father?

Yep I talked about that a lot, and the best interests of the child.. I found it difficult to advise him tbh but I argued a certain way and backed it up so should be fine

Freckley201

byrne7 wrote: »

I would greatly appreciate same. Particularly for FMO workers as I seriously need to cut my notes for that. Also, any predications for equity at all as I am leaving most of the learning until the night before as I have to get through the EU and criminal course before then. I am just going to have to take a massive risk with equity and hope for the best ... The joys of working until the week of the exam ...

The city colleges night before notes seem to have tipped constructive trusts, charitable trusts with cy pres and a mandatory QT injunction but who knows!

lawdedaw

Could anyone explain the link between misrepresentation and mistake under mistaken identity w.r.t void and voidable contract - I have seen it come up a bit and I'm a bit unsure on it

Good luck tomorrow everyone, hopefully we won't all crash and burn

FE1 Lady

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

FE1 Lady wrote: »

Did you base your question on William and Anne on rights of the unmarried father?

Yep I talked about that a lot, and the best interests of the child.. I found it difficult to advise him tbh but I argued a certain way and backed it up so should be fine

Cheers this has gave me some sort of hope for 4 ok answers then...

Lads no joke, I’m literally pulling the hair out of my head with lack of sleep and stress. Here is hoping Eoin Carolan is a lenient marker and will look at my paper and say “aw sure the poor crater tried” and give me a pass!! Ha

MagicThree18

lawdedaw wrote: »

Could anyone explain the link between misrepresentation and mistake under mistaken identity w.r.t void and voidable contract - I have seen it come up a bit and I'm a bit unsure on it

Good luck tomorrow everyone, hopefully we won't all crash and burn

In Lewis v Avery a guy identified himself as Richard Gere when purchasing a car on credit (it must have been the 80's). He produced fake ID. He defaulted on the payments (or something like that) and the question was whether the contract was void or voidable. Courts held that it was voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation as the car dealer intended on dealing with the person in front of him. The fake ID and imposter's real identity were irrelevant.

Contrast that with Ingram v Little. An imposter arrives at the front door of two sisters and offers them a 700 quid cheque for their car. The imposter gives his name and address. They make a few calls and establish that the name they were given is trustworthy. The imposter takes the car and, surprise surprise, the cheque bounces. Again, the same question was asked: void or voidable. Court held that contract was void due to unilateral mistake. The difference being that the imposter's assumed identity was central to the sisters' entering into a contract with him.

Both decisions are of equal authority in Ireland but the Lewis v Avery has garnered more academic approval.

That's all I've got and I think/hope/pray to god that it's correct.

Jenosul

I am freaking over equity did not do much for it as I put more time into other exams!

Any predictions guys please? I know I am cutting it short.

I was thinking from exam grid:-

Trusteeship. It came up every year bar last year and 5 sittings ago.

Expressed Trusts. The 3 certainties. Seems to come up every second year.

Injunctions. Every year. Seems to be Mandatory, Quia timet and perhaps Anton Pillar due up.

Maxiums perhaps maybe half a question.


I am not sure what else to do. I won't remember everything. I was thinking undue influence and maybe charitable trusts. Any tips? I would be so grateful.

I seriously can't wait to have them over! Until March :'-(

Vegetarian2017

Has anyone seen the past paper question re rship of consideration amd undue influence? I have nothing in my notes or book ...

yournerd

MagicThree18 wrote: »

In Lewis v Avery a guy identified himself as Richard Gere when purchasing a car on credit (it must have been the 80's). He produced fake ID. He defaulted on the payments (or something like that) and the question was whether the contract was void or voidable. Courts held that it was voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation as the car dealer intended on dealing with the person in front of him. The fake ID and imposter's real identity were irrelevant.

Contrast that with Ingram v Little. An imposter arrives at the front door of two sisters and offers them a 700 quid cheque for their car. The imposter gives his name and address. They make a few calls and establish that the name they were given is trustworthy. The imposter takes the car and, surprise surprise, the cheque bounces. Again, the same question was asked: void or voidable. Court held that contract was void due to unilateral mistake. The difference being that the imposter's assumed identity was central to the sisters' entering into a contract with him.

Both decisions are of equal authority in Ireland but the Lewis v Avery has garnered more academic approval.

That's all I've got and I think/hope/pray to god that it's correct.

Perfect!

Vegetarian2017

MagicThree18 wrote:

In Lewis v Avery a guy identified himself as Richard Gere when purchasing a car on credit (it must have been the 80's). He produced fake ID. He defaulted on the payments (or something like that) and the question was whether the contract was void or voidable. Courts held that it was voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation as the car dealer intended on dealing with the person in front of him. The fake ID and imposter's real identity was irrelevant.

MagicThree18 wrote:

Contrast that with Ingram v Little. An imposter arrives at the front door of two sisters and offers them a 700 quid cheque for their car. The imposter gives his name and address. They make a few calls and establish that the name they were given is trustworthy. The imposter takes the car and, surprise surprise, the cheque bounces. Again, the same question was asked: void or voidable. Court held that contract was void due to unilateral mistake. The difference being that the imposter's assumed identity was central to the sisters' entering into a contract with him.

MagicThree18 wrote:

Both decisions are of equal authority in Ireland but the Lewis v Avery has garnered more academic approval.

MagicThree18 wrote:

That's all I've got and I think/hope/pray to god that it's correct.

Hi sorry reading this half dead but i think the answer to this question lies in the remedies where a claim in mistake is more sufficient than a claim for misrep.

iamanengine

I have time to cover one more topic, illegal contracts or mistake...what do ye think?!

lawless11

iamanengine wrote: »

I have time to cover one more topic, illegal contracts or mistake...what do ye think?!

Toss a coin. Mistake comes up very often but illegal contracts are due a run (sometime, or tomorrow). So. Dunno what to say to you.

Ditched certainty of terms in the process tonight.

Vegetarian2017

Are many of you covering undue ?i am badly running out of time

iamanengine

lawless11 wrote: »

Toss a coin. Mistake comes up very often but illegal contracts are due a run (sometime, or tomorrow). So. Dunno what to say to you.

Ditched certainty of terms in the process tonight.

Mistake it is!

yournerd

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Are many of you covering undue ?i am badly running out of time

Just barely

I could only do problem for it.

leavingcert17

I don’t have time for terms or exemption clauses. do these normally mix topics?

yournerd

leavingcert17 wrote: »

I don’t have time for terms or exemption clauses. do these normally mix topics?

Exemption is quite common

twitchandsweep

Am I leaving myself really short not covering consumer protection?

Have o+A
Consideration
Estoppel
Misrep/ mistake
Terms
Capacity
Discharge
Damages

Pollylou75

twitchandsweep wrote: »

Am I leaving myself really short not covering consumer protection?

Have o+A
Consideration
Estoppel
Misrep/ mistake
Terms
Capacity
Discharge
Damages

Apparently it comes up on every paper so I would definitely know a bit about it

sapphire309

twitchandsweep wrote: »

Am I leaving myself really short not covering consumer protection?

Have o+A
Consideration
Estoppel
Misrep/ mistake
Terms
Capacity
Discharge
Damages

I am only covering s.12-15 of 1893 Act. Not doing eu regulations - no time. I'm doing the same topics as you have, but also illegal (just the bones) and hopefully ICLR instead of capacity

yournerd

sapphire309 wrote: »

I am only covering s.12-15 of 1893 Act. Not doing eu regulations - no time. I'm doing the same topics as you have, but also illegal (just the bones) and hopefully ICLR instead of capacity

Only s14 and s55 are relevant tbh!

twitchandsweep

sapphire309 wrote: »

I am only covering s.12-15 of 1893 Act. Not doing eu regulations - no time. I'm doing the same topics as you have, but also illegal (just the bones) and hopefully ICLR instead of capacity

Okay I’ll do the same. I only have the bones of ICLR to apply to problem q.... heads melting

olliej

Anyone know how long it takes to get out of the exam after it's finished?? Ends at 12:30pm, will they have the papers collected and people can leave by 1pm??

Frances456

olliej wrote: »

Anyone know how long it takes to get out of the exam after it's finished?? Ends at 12:30pm, will they have the papers collected and people can leave by 1pm??

You'll be out in 5-10 mins.

Gunslinger92

Hope contract goes your way, everyone!