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

Robbie25808

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone covering donatia mortis causa for property?  I don't think it has come up before, but I see intestacy got thrown up out of the blue before!

Intestacy would be fine if came up as could just copy the succession act. DMC tends to come up in equity a lot so i think what that happens they tend not to put it on other topics.

Anna27

I think it covers both

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Co-Ownership:
Does a right to a share of rent and income apply to only joint tenants or both joint tenants and tenants in common?

Robbie25808

Does the landlord and tenant amendment act 1980 ever come up?
If so in what way?

Wonderstruck

Anna27 wrote: »

I think it covers both

Yes, see s 31 LCLCA 09

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/27/section/31/enacted/en/html

Woke up with a nightmare I was failing an undergrad elective exam in something completely random and not law...

Robbie25808

In relation to the question below, because the child abused alchol will this result in her not being able to obtain a 117 application? 


Bernie died suddenly from a short illness in January 2015. At the time of her death, she was living on the family farm with her husband Frederick (which she had inherited some 20 years previous). In her will, Bernie left all of her worldly belongings to her son, John. Bernie also has a daughter, Mary, from a previous relationship to whom she left nothing under the will. 


Upon discovering her mother's death, Mary claims she was left out of the will as she did not get along with her mother. However, she does acknowledge that her mother gave her €15,000 10 years ago to start up a new business venture which never took off. In fact, Mary was challenged by alcohol and drug addiction at the time and mishandled the money as a result. Mary has been in recovery for the past five years and is currently unemployed and living in local authority housing. John, on the other hand, is married with three children and is a wealthy dentist. 
Advise John and Mary

Robbie25808

Does anyone know if that will was valid or what did people say?

Pickpocket

So what subjects came up?

Robbie25808

Pickpocket wrote: »

So what subjects came up?

Nothing about above and below the ground😢
Didn't like the paper at all. Hard to know if passed.

Pickpocket

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Nothing about above and below the ground😢
Didn't like the paper at all. Hard to know if passed.

What subjects did you answer?

Robbie25808

Pickpocket wrote: »

What subjects did you answer?

2 succession. One was on validity and not sure if I was right with my answer. Can you direct someone to write your will and get them to write it and hand it to you? Or do you need to be in their presence when then write it?
Other succession was on intestacy(copied the act basically and added hotchspot)
Other part was revocation.

Another question on easements and adverse possession which was fine.

Then did influence equity and estoppel licence.

shellbm

Robbie25808 wrote: »

2 succession. One was on validity and not sure if I was right with my answer. Can you direct someone to write your will and get them to write it and hand it to you? Or do you need to be in their presence when then write it?
Other succession was on intestacy(copied the act basically and added hotchspot)
Other part was revocation.

Another question on easements and adverse possession which was fine.

Then did influence equity and estoppel licence.

I said the will was valid, she was of legal age and appeared to be of sound and disposing mind as per Bank v Goodfellow.
Jeff did not witness the will as it was not in his line of sight - Shire v Galscock. Therefore his gift remained valid.
Then I said the gift to Dylan was not valid as it must be executed as per s86 and therefore the witness cannot be a beneficiary to a gift.
I said that Dillon could apply for a s117 application and then went into a whole thing of no automatic right and the proper provision tests etc and the 6 month rule.
This is provided that Jeff is not his father under s117 (3) which was unclear. I said that Jeff did not validly revoke the will by throwing it in the fire as it was not under her direction and her presence/intention. I said the €50,000 would therefore be distributed as per the rules of intestacy etc.


No idea whether thats remotely correct, thought that was an awful paper. Was banking on Systems of Land registration, items above and below the land and family property Think i may have bombed that.

Does anyone know has anyone passed Property answering 4 questions and 1 awful question ?? My last exam and I am devastated

lori1980

I said she had capacity being over 18 and sound disposing mind,but that it wasn't Jeff that needed to see her (shires/devlin/kavanagh) as it was Dylan and Mary that attested her signature(initials are valid as per emerson) and that they were In her presence but needed ore info on whether they actually saw it.
Then said that as per the act adding on bit about lotto needed to be attested properly but wasn't so that gift failed plus Dylan attested own gift.
For revocation intention wasn't there by testator as per (case name excapes me just now) and also referenced re Martin and re Brennan.
Said I wasn't going to talk about 111 as no valid will and no need for 117 if he was his dad as would provide but needed more info on hotchpotch and brielfy referenced fm v tam iac abc and sf but not in detail.finished with intestacy and again said need more info like a copy of will or alternatively info on how exacted witnessed signature.

Don't have paper in front of me so could have read question wrong.was it not Mary and Dylan that attested will and Jeff didnt need to see it as he didnt attest?I'm happy with other questons anyway so don't mind if I messed that one up!

Robbie25808

shellbm wrote: »

I said the will was valid, she was of legal age and appeared to be of sound and disposing mind as per Bank v Goodfellow.
Jeff did not witness the will as it was not in his line of sight - Shire v Galscock. Therefore his gift remained valid.
Then I said the gift to Dylan was not valid as it must be executed as per s86 and therefore the witness cannot be a beneficiary to a gift.
I said that Dillon could apply for a s117 application and then went into a whole thing of no automatic right and the proper provision tests etc and the 6 month rule.
This is provided that Jeff is not his father under s117 (3) which was unclear. I said that Jeff did not validly revoke the will by throwing it in the fire as it was not under her direction and her presence/intention. I said the €50,000 would therefore be distributed as per the rules of intestacy etc.


No idea whether thats remotely correct, thought that was an awful paper. Was banking on Systems of Land registration, items above and below the land and family property Think i may have bombed that.

Does anyone know has anyone passed Property answering 4 questions and 1 awful question ?? My last exam and I am devastated

That sounds about right.
I don't think it mattered that he didn't have line of sight I said cause was witnessed by the others.
**** I didn't say sedone was invalid cause witnessed by your man.
Also I didn't talk much about 117 as the question said validity and thought was just in relationn to mainly s77 and s78.
**** that paper anyway was looking around for some gold object buried in the ground.

binkevii

Contract:
how it is important to know Intention to create legal Relations; Formal and Evidentiary Requirements; Unconscionable Bargains?

binkevii

Contract:
how it is important to know Intention to create legal Relations; Formal and Evidentiary Requirements; Unconscionable Bargains?

Yoop

binkevii wrote: »

Contract:
how it is important to know Intention to create legal Relations; Formal and Evidentiary Requirements; Unconscionable Bargains?

You could probably leave out unconscionable bargain if you have everything else covered. There's a lot of mixed topics in contract so I would recommend having a look over form and intent; they might come up as a minor issue in a problem question.

LegalAnna

I thought the paper was alright! Decided to do the question on intestacy which was basically copying the act and then going through the doctrine of hotchpot but I didn't have any cases for it! Is that ok? Will I still get marks? Other than that I thought the paper was ok! The questions were pretty much a repeat from previous questions in most cases

claiomh solais

Yeah it was straightforward enough I think. 2 successions, adverse possession and easements came up. If findings had come up it would have been a perfect paper but I just did mortgages instead so it was grand.

the great communicator

Thank god they're over, hopefully that'll be 8 done fingers crossed.
Thanks everyone for the help and even for just being a place to whine when I've long worn out the patience of the people around me in real life!

BASHBAG

Hey everyone,

Does anyone know, roughly how often uberimae contracts come up under misrep. I've gone through it loads of times and keep messing up case names and which tests to apply.

Cheers!

starbar91

Anyone have an educated guess what subjects should come up tomorrow in contract??

Why can't it just be like the rest of them and have a topic per question... the questions are so hard to interpret

Robbie25808

I am goosed for tomorrow. Didn't really study much at all for this one. Any suggestions on what I should study or what can I leave out?

Lumi77

I feel the same as all of you and been studying 8 hours a day since November.
It's a mush in my head.

But what I can say is that the October paper was very though and complaints so fingers crossed this one will be easier on us.
Good luck everyone

Robbie25808

Anyone have a contract exam grid? Would really appreciate it.

binkevii

My guess would be:
Offer/acceptance/consideration
Estoppel
Privity
Terms
exemption clauses
Consumer protection
Misrepresentation
Mistake or Duress
Discharge
Remedies

Paleblood

I realise you're all in the thick of it right now but I'm looking ahead to my first sitting in September/October. I'm going to do a preparatory course with City Colleges because it's been four years since I graduated and I know from past experience that I need some sort of formal structure to my study.

Mod
Sorry discussion of the various Colleges not allowed here

Finally, is it crazy attempting 6 subjects rather than 4?

Thanks.

Paleblood

My apologies, I didn't realise.

May I ask why though?

MOD
Boards.ie ask us to avoid any risk of defamation actions
Some time ago an examiner/tutor complained of remarks about him here
Therefore we ask for posters' cooperation on that ar eagla na-eagla

Lumi77

Can someone please explain battle of forms in simple terms can't get it the way I have it written.
Thank you

XxMCRxBabyxX

Lumi77 wrote: »

Can someone please explain battle of forms in simple terms can't get it the way I have it written.
Thank you

Two companies negotiating a contract. Company one serves their offer which included a page of their terms.
Company two responded in agreement but included their terms on a slip that Co. 1 had to sign which made it a counter offer.
The slip was signed and sent back but accompanied by a letter with Co. 1's terms set out.
Question is then which terms apply? First, last or there is no contract?

Courts found that signing the slip was acceptance as the enclosed letter was not specific(?) enough.

I don't know if that's helped at all. It's all from memory so sorry that it's a bit messy.

Lumi77

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Two companies negotiating a contract. Company one serves their offer which included a page of their terms.
Company two responded in agreement but included their terms on a slip that Co. 1 had to sign which made it a counter offer.
The slip was signed and sent back but accompanied by a letter with Co. 1's terms set out.
Question is then which terms apply? First, last or there is no contract?

Courts found that signing the slip was acceptance as the enclosed letter was not specific(?) enough.

I don't know if that's helped at all. It's all from memory so sorry that it's a bit messy.

I got it. Thanks a million.
Tired at this stage. 😢😢