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

jus_me

Sineaddh wrote: »

Best bet for contract? I have offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations but don’t know what else I should focus on?

I'm doing offer/acceptance
Consumer protection
misrepresentation
Remedies
exclusion clauses
undue influence
consideration
discharge
and the impact of the EU directives on contract law.

Olliepollie

lawDani wrote: »

are you leaving any chapters out? I am in over my head this is my first sitting and may have underestimated these lovely exams!

Oh they are actually the sickest thing!!! I think it's impossible not to underestimate them because your brain can't actually comprehend the amount we're supposed to know but I was the exact same as you on my first sitting and got my 4 (just BARELY but I got them) so you will get through it!

Now after that little pep talk haha...
Re Property I left out the following:
Tenure (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Freehold Estates (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Hybrid Estates (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Trusts of Land (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Freehold Covenants (only came up once in last 5 years or something and that was with a different examiner)
And
Mortgages (risky I know but I just couldnt get my head around it)

I studied everything else! Hope that helps!

OMGWACA

ciarocxcc wrote: »

Anyone have a company exam report for March?

i do, pm me your email address and i'll email it to you!

OMGWACA

Anyone have some sort of a cheat/quick guide for tabbing the CA14 please? just worried about missing some relevant sections etc and want to have everything colour coded. Have plenty of material I'd be happy to swap for it!

hullaballoo

jewels652 wrote: »

Can somebody be kind enough to explain the rule in Strong and Bird in simple plain English I have read it from 3 different books and I am just not getting it. Maybe is a sign I should take a break form studying

What part are you struggling with? It's quite a specific rule that is an exception to the equity not assisting volunteers maxim with specific application.

jamesob123

Hi all,

Anyone know when the latest round of Night Before Notes will be released? They do tend to enjoy taking their time with these.

Thanks

iamanengine

jamesob123 wrote: »

Hi all,

Anyone know when the latest round of Night Before Notes will be released? They do tend to enjoy taking their time with these.

Thanks

The clue is in the name :pac:

https://citycolleges.ie/fe1-night-before-notes/

Notes are up here for the October 2018 sitting which should essentially be the same.

legaltraineex

jewels652 wrote: »

Can somebody be kind enough to explain the rule in Strong and Bird in simple plain English I have read it from 3 different books and I am just not getting it. Maybe is a sign I should take a break form studying

Mother-in-law gave son in law a loan of £1100 under the arrangement that he would pay back £100 every three months. Six months passed and mother-in-law decided to forgive the balance of the debt and told him VERBALLY (imperfect gift) that he did not need to pay her back.

Mother-in-law died soon afterwards and her estate sought payment of £900 (balance of debt) from son-in-law.

Because it was a verbal agreement to forgive the debt it was an imperfect gift.

BUT the son-in-law was the executor of the will - this perfected the imperfect gift - the right to sue for the repayment of the debt was voluntarily abandoned when the creditor (mother-in-law) appointed the debtor (son-in-law) as her executor.

Essentially, if you owe someone money - they verbally forgive the debt then die - no liability to pay back even though it's only a verbal agreement if you are the executor/ administrator of the estate.

jewels652

legaltraineex wrote: »

Mother-in-law gave son in law a loan of £1100 under the arrangement that he would pay back £100 every three months. Six months passed and mother-in-law decided to forgive the balance of the debt and told him VERBALLY (imperfect gift) that he did not need to pay her back.

Mother-in-law died soon afterwards and her estate sought payment of £900 (balance of debt) from son-in-law.

Because it was a verbal agreement to forgive the debt it was an imperfect gift.

BUT the son-in-law was the executor of the will - this perfected the imperfect gift - the right to sue for the repayment of the debt was voluntarily abandoned when the creditor (mother-in-law) appointed the debtor (son-in-law) as her executor.

Essentially, if you owe someone money - they verbally forgive the debt then die - no liability to pay back even though it's only a verbal agreement if you are the executor/ administrator of the estate.

Thank you so much

user115

Tort

I don't get this whole actionable 'per se' thing, what does that mean?

Is it there is no actual tort law that deals with the issue if it is deemed not actionable per se and you take it up indirectly? Or is that totally wrong, I really don't get it! Any help much appreciated

Also kinda freaked out by past tort exams when examiner uses terms like 'intentional tort', I noticed people said on here that it means trepass to person or nuisance or rylands. I really hope no odd terms like that in exam! Will prob get it more when I've done proper learning off of notes and not be so clueless...well I hope so anyway!

jamesob123

Would someone be kind enough to send me the Examiner Report from the last Company exam?

I can sort you out for other exam materials if you are lacking!

Thanks

LawGirl3434

Property:

Could anyone be kind enough to just sum up the rules on witnessing a will? Have dozens of cases all saying different things. Basically do the witnesses need to see it, or is it okay that they just had the opportunity? Do they need to be there at the same time? And does the testator need to see the witness sign? Have cases that I think are saying all of the above but would welcome some clarification

iamanengine

user115 wrote: »

Tort

I don't get this whole actionable 'per se' thing, what does that mean?

Is it there is no actual tort law that deals with the issue if it is deemed not actionable per se and you take it up indirectly? Or is that totally wrong, I really don't get it! Any help much appreciated

Also kinda freaked out by past tort exams when examiner uses terms like 'intentional tort', I noticed people said on here that it means trepass to person or nuisance or rylands. I really hope no odd terms like that in exam! Will prob get it more when I've done proper learning off of notes and not be so clueless...well I hope so anyway!

Actionable per se means a claim can lie without damage. For example, trespass to land is actionable per se, there doesn't need to be any damage, just the fact that someone has trespassed on your land means you can bring a claim.

legaltraineex

user115 wrote: »

Tort

I don't get this whole actionable 'per se' thing, what does that mean?

Is it there is no actual tort law that deals with the issue if it is deemed not actionable per se and you take it up indirectly? Or is that totally wrong, I really don't get it! Any help much appreciated

Also kinda freaked out by past tort exams when examiner uses terms like 'intentional tort', I noticed people said on here that it means trepass to person or nuisance or rylands. I really hope no odd terms like that in exam! Will prob get it more when I've done proper learning off of notes and not be so clueless...well I hope so anyway!

Actionable per se just means that you can bring an action without having to prove damage!

legaltraineex

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Property:

Could anyone be kind enough to just sum up the rules on witnessing a will? Have dozens of cases all saying different things. Basically do the witnesses need to see it, or is it okay that they just had the opportunity? Do they need to be there at the same time? And does the testator need to see the witness sign? Have cases that I think are saying all of the above but would welcome some clarification

Witnesses

Presence
• Section 78(2) SA 1965 states that the testator’s signature must be ‘made or acknowledged by the testator’s presence of each of two or more witnesses, present at the same time’
• Witnesses must both be present at the same time when they witness the making of the signature or the acknowledgment of the signature by the testator.
• The witnesses need not be present when the testator signs the will, so long as they are both present when the testator acknowledges the will.
• They need not both be present at the same time when they sign the will as witnesses, although they must sign the will in the presence of the testator.
• The testator and the witnesses need not be in the same room, a line of sight i.e. an open door will suffice as this will allow for the witnesses to see the testator sign the will.
• Presence does not require that the testator see the witnesses (Tod v Earl Winchelsea)
o A blind person can make a will (Re Piercy’s Goods)
o Witness cannot be blind (In bonnis Gibson)


Signature
• The signature of the witnesses attests the signature of the testator and not the will itself.
o Witness does not need to know that what they are signing is a will
o Witness does not need to see the testator make the will
o Witness does not need to know the contents of the will
• Witness must use her own signature and can sign any part of the will.
• Signature can be:
o Initials (In bonis Strealey)
o A mark (In bonis Amiss)
o Stamped signature (Re Bullock)
• Witnesses do not have to sign in each other’s presence.
• The witness must sign in the presence of the testator.

This is from my notes - hope it helps a bit!

LawGirl3434

legaltraineex wrote: »

Witnesses

Presence
• Section 78(2) SA 1965 states that the testator’s signature must be ‘made or acknowledged by the testator’s presence of each of two or more witnesses, present at the same time’
• Witnesses must both be present at the same time when they witness the making of the signature or the acknowledgment of the signature by the testator.
• The witnesses need not be present when the testator signs the will, so long as they are both present when the testator acknowledges the will.
• They need not both be present at the same time when they sign the will as witnesses, although they must sign the will in the presence of the testator.
• The testator and the witnesses need not be in the same room, a line of sight i.e. an open door will suffice as this will allow for the witnesses to see the testator sign the will.
• Presence does not require that the testator see the witnesses (Tod v Earl Winchelsea)
o A blind person can make a will (Re Piercy’s Goods)
o Witness cannot be blind (In bonnis Gibson)


Signature
• The signature of the witnesses attests the signature of the testator and not the will itself.
o Witness does not need to know that what they are signing is a will
o Witness does not need to see the testator make the will
o Witness does not need to know the contents of the will
• Witness must use her own signature and can sign any part of the will.
• Signature can be:
o Initials (In bonis Strealey)
o A mark (In bonis Amiss)
o Stamped signature (Re Bullock)
• Witnesses do not have to sign in each other’s presence.
• The witness must sign in the presence of the testator.

This is from my notes - hope it helps a bit!

Thanks so much for writing all of that out - I actually have all the same stuff, just looking to get it into very basic language in my head because it just feels so technical

Basically I think they both have to be there at the same time when he signs or acknowledges it, but don’t have to be there at the same time when the other witness does? Then they don’t need to be in the same room as him and then go into your line of sight and presumptions cases?

Thanks!

legaltraineex

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Thanks so much for writing all of that out - I actually have all the same stuff, just looking to get it into very basic language in my head because it just feels so technical

Basically I think they both have to be there at the same time when he signs or acknowledges it, but don’t have to be there at the same time when the other witness does? Then they don’t need to be in the same room as him and then go into your line of sight and presumptions cases?

Thanks!

That's right in my head anyway!

SwD

legaltraineex wrote: »

That's right in my head anyway!

Section 78 of the Succession Act 1965 provides for a will to be valid it must be in writing, signed and attested.

In Writing

There is a liberal interpretation of the “In writing” requirement. In the goods of Barnes, a will was written on empty egg shell and it was admitted to probate.
Signature

The will must be signed at the foot or end of the document by the testator.

The signature can take any form as long as there is animus testandi i.e. an intention to execute a will. In the Estate of Cook, the descriptive phrase “your loving mother” was deemed a sufficient signature. In the Goods of Finn, a thumb mark was sufficient.

An assisted signature is acceptable as long as the testator participates physically to some extent.

A testator can also direct someone else in his presence to make his signature as in Fulton v Kee where the testator was completely powerless, he said put my hand on yours and the solicitor wrote his name, that was a directed signature. The goods of Clarke highlights that they can sign their own name or the testator’s name.

Attestation

The testator’s signature must be either made in front of or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses at the same time.

Where the testator acknowledges his signature, the witnesses must have had the opportunity to see it, even if they did not avail of the opportunity. The line of sight rule Casson v Dade holds the requirement of presence can be met even if they aren’t in the same room as long as there is a line of sight ie through a window/open door.

Following the signature or acknowledgement of the testator, the witnesses must attest by their signature the signature of the testator. The witnesses must sign the will in his presence, but not necessarily in the presence of each other. Signature of the witness’ can take any form and they can sign anywhere on the document as long as it was intended to attest the testators signature.
Re Devlin highlights that the witnesses’ signatures attest the signature of the testator and not the will itself. The witnesses don’t have to know that it is a will they are signing, nor the contents.

Where a will appears to be executed in compliance with the formal requirements set out in the Succession act, a presumption of due execution arises as per Clarke v Early.


These are my notes from the last sitting. They may be of help.

woodsie1000

EU:

Hi guys! Slowly coming to terms with how massive the EU law syllabus is and was wondering what topics people are focusing on more than others/cutting out altogether?

I know institutions, free movement of goods and workers are safe bets but not sure what else! Having one of the questions in the exam as a free-for-all case notes question doesn't help either 😂

Thanks!

ahhhhhFE1s

woodsie1000 wrote: »

EU:

Hi guys! Slowly coming to terms with how massive the EU law syllabus is and was wondering what topics people are focusing on more than others/cutting out altogether?

I know institutions, free movement of goods and workers are safe bets but not sure what else! Having one of the questions in the exam as a free-for-all case notes question doesn't help either ��

Thanks!

Ya I'm also wondering what to cut myself, such a massive volume of cases and info

Think my list will be..

Institutions
Competition Law- **Art 101 and 102 only
General Principles of EU Law- proportionality, charter, supremacy etc
Free Movement of Goods
Free Movement of Workers and Citizenship
Equality
Direct Effect
MS liability
Judicial Review

Any thoughts welcome!!

sbbyrne

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Ya I'm also wondering what to cut myself, such a massive volume of cases and info

Think my list will be..

Institutions
Competition Law- **Art 101 and 102 only
General Principles of EU Law- proportionality, charter, supremacy etc
Free Movement of Goods
Free Movement of Workers and Citizenship
Equality
Direct Effect
MS liability
Judicial Review

Any thoughts welcome!!

Mine is identical to this!

I've looked through papers going back a few sittings and with this list there's on average 6 questions available to answer (excluding the Case note, i'm leaving that one out also.) So i think we should be good? But yes, i'm also open to suggestions

niamh1612

Does anybody have any simplified, exam focused notes on Easements? I've read the manual from start to finish but cannot grasp it at all. I can swap for another topic in property, its the only one I just can't get my head around its driving me nuts!

legaltraineex

If anyone has looked at the 2017 Tort Paper, in Q.7 are the strangers that turn up at the party considered recreational users?

iamanengine

niamh1612 wrote: »

Does anybody have any simplified, exam focused notes on Easements? I've read the manual from start to finish but cannot grasp it at all. I can swap for another topic in property, its the only one I just can't get my head around its driving me nuts!

Don't have any notes to send as they are written out but I find it easiest to split easements into parts:

1. Characteristics - As per Re Ellenborough Park, every easement needs to have these 4 characteristics. My manual also had 2 extra requirements - Must not overly infringe on the servient owners rights and should not contravene with public policy.

2. Acquisition - I find this the most confusing part. There are 5 headings in which easements can be granted with some sub headings. Express grant, reservation, implication (most important part to know here is easement by necessity), estoppel and prescription (most important section to know statutory prescription).

3. Types - I have some general info on the common types, Right of Way, Right to Support (and Protection from wind and weather), Right to Light.

4. Discharge - Small section, 3 ways - Staute, operation of law, release

If there is any specific part you're struggling with just let me know and I will try to help!

Suzannec

Hi, would anyone have any tips for the constitutional paper? I am having trouble trying to fit the whole course in, its massive!! Thanks in advance!

nimcdona

Suzannec wrote: »

Hi, would anyone have any tips for the constitutional paper? I am having trouble trying to fit the whole course in, its massive!! Thanks in advance!

Would really appreciate if anyone had any insights to share on this too! What topics that you definitely can't leave out or any feelings as to anything that they are expecting to come up.

It's such a big course, really struggling to know if I'm covering enough

lawDani

Olliepollie wrote: »

Oh they are actually the sickest thing!!! I think it's impossible not to underestimate them because your brain can't actually comprehend the amount we're supposed to know but I was the exact same as you on my first sitting and got my 4 (just BARELY but I got them) so you will get through it!

Now after that little pep talk haha...
Re Property I left out the following:
Tenure (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Freehold Estates (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Hybrid Estates (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Trusts of Land (hasn't come up since 2009 Reform Act)
Freehold Covenants (only came up once in last 5 years or something and that was with a different examiner)
And
Mortgages (risky I know but I just couldnt get my head around it)

I studied everything else! Hope that helps!

Oh my god amazing thank you. I’m actually leaving out much of those too bad mortgages. The notes I have are on that topic are excellent so it could be my best question.

Are you sitting contract and/or criminal?

steveeq

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Hi all,

Would ay EU people have any idea of how to tackle the following question? It's from March 2017, Q2.

The CoJ in Case C-603/2010, Pelati v Slovenia, clearly summarised the level of procedural autonomy available for member states in deciding which remedies should be available at national level for breaches of EU law (then gives quote from para 23 of judgement explaining this).

How have these principles of 'equivalence' and 'practical possibility' referred to been developed by the Union judicature to provide clear guidance on how they should deal with breaches of EU law?

I think this is a general principles of EU law question? I may be massively wrong. Anyone any idea on how to tackle this?

Thanks!

Hi guys, and lawgirl.

Just wondering does anybody have anything on this.

Really feel it'll be the 'general principles' question in a couple of weeks time.

Panic mode setting in.

steveeq

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Ya I'm also wondering what to cut myself, such a massive volume of cases and info

Think my list will be..

Institutions
Competition Law- **Art 101 and 102 only
General Principles of EU Law- proportionality, charter, supremacy etc
Free Movement of Goods
Free Movement of Workers and Citizenship
Equality
Direct Effect
MS liability
Judicial Review

Any thoughts welcome!!

I've cut myself shorter than this.
Leaving out competition and equality altogether.
And only commenting on MS liability for an end of a problem question on direct effect.

Am I insane?

lawDani

Breacnua wrote: »

Depends how much you understand the content, if you have looked at questions a little and have some notes. if you have kept ontop of the 14 weeks lectures and answered some homework Qs give them a shot, you might surprise yourself! even if you haven't kept on top of the content and have notes you would be surprised what can be learned in a few days. overall, I would say go for it when you have come this far.

Yes true, thanks. I haven’t really kept up with the homework but condensing notes as much as I can now... there’s always all nighters too! Thanks for the motivation 💪ðŸ»