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

user115

Jenosul thanks that was really sound of you

Goodluck, hope study going well

luimneachabu73

EQUITY - CHARITIES / CY-PRES

Question (i)

1. €250,000 to Domhain Glan, an environmental group with charitable status, which aims to promote environmentally sustainable and beneficial practices among members of the Irish public; sum is for the purpose of supporting a political campaign to change the law by prohibiting the use of disposable coffee cups

2. €50,000 to Domhain Glen to be used to fund the Seanad electoral campaign of such member of the Board’s choosing of the Environmental Alliance, a political party advancing environmental policies which mirror the principles of Domhain Glan.

Executor is his son and a member of Board of Domhain Glan

Are either of 1. or 2. excluded due to political reasons, or are either subject to exceptions? and, Does the son's role on the Board affect things?


Question (ii)

a. Sean has directed that €2,000,000 ought by the executor in such manner as he sees fit to promote the playing of football in rural communities
b. €1,000,000 used to ensure the provision of playing fields in Sean’s home town.
c. €100,000 to organise a campaign to promote the introduction of legislation criminalising certain conduct on the playing pitch, such as remonstrating with referees

I feel like a. will be looked at unfavourably as it is only in the recreational context (other purposes beneficial for the community) and not directly in the educational context, i.e. not relating to a school or community (IRC v McMullen). Is b. the same as a.? Is c. politcial and hence not allowed?


Any opinions on the above? Pretty sure what I've said in the italics is incorrect. Thank you!!

user115

Company

On shareholder remedies a question often comes up that would your answer be different if company's constitution contain a provision that the company would support shareholders business. In exam report he refers to s31 contracts and I kind of understand but would this be correct to say that the shareholder can take an action against def directors in the companies name or is it a personal shareholder ground under s212?

buckaaabfe1

What topics are people going with for Constitutional?! Or any tips/predictions?

Haven't done any prep courses and its just so big!

Stressing out so much at trying to cut topics I don't know what to be focusing on!

LawGirl3434

luimneachabu73 wrote: »

EQUITY - CHARITIES / CY-PRES

Question (i)

1. €250,000 to Domhain Glan, an environmental group with charitable status, which aims to promote environmentally sustainable and beneficial practices among members of the Irish public; sum is for the purpose of supporting a political campaign to change the law by prohibiting the use of disposable coffee cups

2. €50,000 to Domhain Glen to be used to fund the Seanad electoral campaign of such member of the Board’s choosing of the Environmental Alliance, a political party advancing environmental policies which mirror the principles of Domhain Glan.

Executor is his son and a member of Board of Domhain Glan

Are either of 1. or 2. excluded due to political reasons, or are either subject to exceptions? and, Does the son's role on the Board affect things?


Question (ii)

a. Sean has directed that €2,000,000 ought by the executor in such manner as he sees fit to promote the playing of football in rural communities
b. €1,000,000 used to ensure the provision of playing fields in Sean’s home town.
c. €100,000 to organise a campaign to promote the introduction of legislation criminalising certain conduct on the playing pitch, such as remonstrating with referees

I feel like a. will be looked at unfavourably as it is only in the recreational context (other purposes beneficial for the community) and not directly in the educational context, i.e. not relating to a school or community (IRC v McMullen). Is b. the same as a.? Is c. politcial and hence not allowed?


Any opinions on the above? Pretty sure what I've said in the italics is incorrect. Thank you!!

Not doing equity today but just to flag section 2 of the 2009 act - excluded body is one that is furthering a political campaign, unless its directly linked to their charitable status. They've specified that Domhnain Glan thing is charitable, so I reckon it's just a case of weighting up public benefit requirement - give a few cases and then possibly mention founders kin because his son is on the board

Then for part a of ii I think you're on the right track but I think something being recreational is only not allowed if its for 3(1)(a) the prevention of poverty - Re Nottage is a good example of you can't fund a particular sport - then theres a few nice cases discussing pitches and their public benefit requirement, think judges found it hard to allow for something to be charitable that the rich and poor could use and that may have an entrance fee, but they got over it and was charitable.

Hope that helps

LawGirl3434

Company

Could anyone help me out with understanding priority on winding up? In my notes, I have that it goes:

Liquidator Costs, Preferential Credits, Fixed over Book Debts, Floating, Unsecured

Just wondering where do regular fixed charges fit in? Also, if revenue are a preferential creditor (s612), why do they need to register under s1001 TCA 1997 in order to gain priority over fixed charges by book debts? Also when a floating crystallises, does that bump it up the list?

Feel like I'm missing something fundamental so would be grateful for any light to be shed

SwD

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Company

Could anyone help me out with understanding priority on winding up? In my notes, I have that it goes:

Liquidator Costs, Preferential Credits, Fixed over Book Debts, Floating, Unsecured

Just wondering where do regular fixed charges fit in? Also, if revenue are a preferential creditor (s612), why do they need to register under s1001 TCA 1997 in order to gain priority over fixed charges by book debts? Also when a floating crystallises, does that bump it up the list?

Feel like I'm missing something fundamental so would be grateful for any light to be shed

To my knowledge it’s:

Retention of title clause holders
Fixed charge holders, except over book debts
Liquidator costs
Preferential creditors
Floating charge holders
Unsecured creditors
Surplus to members and contributories.

legaltraineex

Does anyone have company law past papers and examiner's reports? Or even just the exam papers, I'm very stuck at the moment trying to get an idea of the paper layout.

I have other subjects that i can swap!

LawGirl3434

What are people cutting for company?

It’s so huge but equally so hard to predict! Cutting examinership, disqualification (keeping restriction) and ultra vires as was just up. Anyone anything else?

Silence88

legaltraineex wrote: »

Does anyone have company law past papers and examiner's reports? Or even just the exam papers, I'm very stuck at the moment trying to get an idea of the paper layout.

I have other subjects that i can swap!

Pm me your email and I'll send them on

LeVaterIzVet

Has anyone sitting contract law come across any questions where Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act was relevant? I've come across it in examiner reports but not in my manual. Why mightn't an agreement be enforceable under S.4?

JCormac

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

What are people cutting for company?

It’s so huge but equally so hard to predict! Cutting examinership, disqualification (keeping restriction) and ultra vires as was just up. Anyone anything else?

Cutting Examinership and UV too, along with Capital Maintenance and Legislative control of transactions betw/ Directors and company.

You're right - It's just so voluminous not to mention that a lot of the chapters are similar and easy to confuse.

Absolutely dreading this one

JohnsKite

Has anyone any advise on narrowing down landlord and tenant to exam relevant stuff, because its huge? like am I safe leaving out licence/lease distinctions, covenants, alienation, etc. I feel like I should focus on 'part 4'/termination/notice/RTA04-19, but what else might come up?

LawGirl3434

JCormac wrote: »

Cutting Examinership and UV too, along with Capital Maintenance and Legislative control of transactions betw/ Directors and company.

You're right - It's just so voluminous not to mention that a lot of the chapters are similar and easy to confuse.

Absolutely dreading this one

Same, but to be fair last paper was a stinker and pass rate dropped significantly as a reflection of that - so we should be due something kinder

lawyersuffolk

Thinking of leaving out freedom of services + establishment because i am so low on time or should i definitely cover it? if so, would anyone have notes? Can swap for any other topic in EU, Contract, Criminal, Property or Equity!

Louis Litt

COMPANY

Can anyone please clarify charges for me.

Upon crystallisation of a floating charge, does that now fixed charge automatically jump ahead of preferential creditors? Or is it still deemed as a floating charge in terms if priority, just now the companys is restricted in dealing with the assets that were under the floating charge?

Thanks

DUMSURFER

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Company

Could anyone help me out with understanding priority on winding up? In my notes, I have that it goes:

Liquidator Costs, Preferential Credits, Fixed over Book Debts, Floating, Unsecured

Just wondering where do regular fixed charges fit in? Also, if revenue are a preferential creditor (s612), why do they need to register under s1001 TCA 1997 in order to gain priority over fixed charges by book debts? Also when a floating crystallises, does that bump it up the list?

Feel like I'm missing something fundamental so would be grateful for any light to be shed

Hope this is right and clarifies things but this is the basic break down I have as the first thing in my notes to keep it clear for me. Any input to contrary is welcome.

Priorities on Liquidation
1. Secured Creditors – Fixed Charge Holders.
2. Preferential Creditors (include Revenue & Employees).
3. Floating Charge Holders.
4. Unsecured Creditors.
5. Residual Claimants (i.e. Shareholders entitled to residual share of the company).

Edit: Obviously then just to avoid potential confusion, with Retention of Title, if you retain legal title, your goods don't get sucked up into the liquidation so that takes ultimate priority but personally I keep ROT separate just to keep it simple.

2nd Edit: "Also when a floating crystallises, does that bump it up the list?" - No. Preferential creditors will rank in priority to those with charges created originally as floating charges, irrespective of whether they are crystallised into fixed charges later.

Wonderstruck

Beyond stupid question, but I presume it's okay to tab Blackstone with those clear sticky notes things (can you tell I've never tabbed anything in my life?)

DUMSURFER

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Beyond stupid question, but I presume it's okay to tab Blackstone with those clear sticky notes things (can you tell I've never tabbed anything in my life?)

Not stupid at all, I spent a couple of days trying to find out what exactly was the story. Here's what I got from Law Society themselves and requirements they have regarding bringing legislation into the exam. This applies to any legislation for all the exams you can bring legislation into.

1. Candidates may only bring into the examinations the original, unmarked (except for highlighting and underlining) publications. Photocopies or copies printed from the internet are not acceptable.

2. The legislative sources must be handed in for checking by the invigilators at least one day prior to the day of the examination during which the sources will be used. The legislative sources can be handed in between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on each examination day to the Examination Reception Desk. Please note that staff at the Red Cow cannot accept or store such materials.

3. Any item submitted for checking must be clearly marked with the candidate’s examination number.

Hope this will be helpful to someone because I sure as hell would have been screwed otherwise!

Rainbow25

Would anyone have a copy of the October 2018 and March 2019 EU paper and report? I have plenty of papers etc for other subjects if needed!

iamanengine

Requesting an up to date Criminal Grid please if anyone has one.

Can swap for other stuff!!

sbbyrne

LAND

Hey!

Does anyone have the Autumn/October 2018 land examiner report/sample answers, please?

I have material i can swap for all subjects! Thanks so much !

supercreative

Can anyone help me with causation problem questions? I did the March 2011 Q3 one and found it really confusing, I know the law pretty well but I have no idea how to apply it to the fact scenarios he gives and it's becoming a bit of a stress. Can help out with various things in Equity/Property in return

DUMSURFER

Looking (and getting desperate) for:
- Up-to-date grid for Equity
- Spring 2019 exam/examiner report for Equity
- Night-Before-Notes from City Colleges for upcoming Equity exam (or any topic really)

Have notes from people who left college with 1.1's and flew the FE1s for Equity, Tort, Company and EU, and a bunch more, that I'd be more then happy to share. Any help will be greatly appreciated!!

iamanengine

supercreative wrote: »

Can anyone help me with causation problem questions? I did the March 2011 Q3 one and found it really confusing, I know the law pretty well but I have no idea how to apply it to the fact scenarios he gives and it's becoming a bit of a stress. Can help out with various things in Equity/Property in return

So the damage here is damage to Mary's car and possibly nervous shock.

The wheel left the car, two potential causes: Jonathon not tightening the nuts on the wheel and the machine going too fast. Presumably Acme are responsible for the faulty machine though we are not told. It's possible for two parties to be liable for damage in one incident. Mention concurrent wrongdoers.

Factual Cause = Material contribution test applies - McGhee, Fairchild etc. Acme and Jonathon both potentially liable under this test.

However, is there a DOC? Lack of foreseeability and proximity.
If there is a DOC - Potential novus Actus = Jonathon could possibly avoid liability due to Alan's failure to pull the handbrake. Acme can't due to vicarious liability, Alan is an employee. It might not be a novus as it could be considered involuntary conduct as he got a fright.

Remotness - Foreseeabilty test, probably not foreseeable.

Type of Damage - Loss for damage to car, no problem here. Potentially nervous shock due to the child being in the car though unlikely.

PuffleHuffLyra

Anyone willing to share sample answers for EU/Equity?

JCormac

Company

For the Corporate Borrowing chapter/topic.

Seeing as the examiner asked an Essay on Floating Charges last sitting is it reasonable to assume that there's a fairly large chance the Corporate Borrowing question this sitting could be a problem one revolving around Fixed Charges over Book Debts along with Retention of Titles clauses ?

I'm finding Company by far the most difficult exam to gauge so far - Definitely going to be touch & go

user115

JCormac wrote: »

Company

For the Corporate Borrowing chapter/topic.

Seeing as the examiner asked an Essay on Floating Charges last sitting is it reasonable to assume that there's a fairly large chance the Corporate Borrowing question this sitting could be a problem one revolving around Fixed Charges over Book Debts along with Retention of Titles clauses ?

I'm finding Company by far the most difficult exam to gauge so far - Definitely going to be touch & go

I think company won't be that bad, if you read his reports the same information on topics he's looking for and he just swaps around how he asks it. As you said rather than when floating becomes fixed, he likes to ask book debts and rot. I wouldn't bank though that he won't ask when fixed becoming floating again as I'd say he's not that predictable. Also he likes the a and b parts to questions.

I'm really hoping it'll be a nice paper, like he can't have 2 absolute s***e papers in a row

supercreative

iamanengine wrote: »

So the damage here is damage to Mary's car and possibly nervous shock.

The wheel left the car, two potential causes: Jonathon not tightening the nuts on the wheel and the machine going too fast. Presumably Acme are responsible for the faulty machine though we are not told. It's possible for two parties to be liable for damage in one incident. Mention concurrent wrongdoers.

Factual Cause = Material contribution test applies - McGhee, Fairchild etc. Acme and Jonathon both potentially liable under this test.

However, is there a DOC? Lack of foreseeability and proximity.
If there is a DOC - Potential novus Actus = Jonathon could possibly avoid liability due to Alan's failure to pull the handbrake. Acme can't due to vicarious liability, Alan is an employee. It might not be a novus as it could be considered involuntary conduct as he got a fright.

Remotness - Foreseeabilty test, probably not foreseeable.

Type of Damage - Loss for damage to car, no problem here. Potentially nervous shock due to the child being in the car though unlikely.

This is fantastic, you don't know how much this has helped! Seriously grateful, let me know if you need any help with Equity or Property.

LawGirl3434

user115 wrote: »

I think company won't be that bad, if you read his reports the same information on topics he's looking for and he just swaps around how he asks it. As you said rather than when floating becomes fixed, he likes to ask book debts and rot. I wouldn't bank though that he won't ask when fixed becoming floating again as I'd say he's not that predictable. Also he likes the a and b parts to questions.

I'm really hoping it'll be a nice paper, like he can't have 2 absolute s***e papers in a row

I was wondering the same but agree absolutely he’s not that predictable