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

JCormac

Daly29 wrote: »

Justice for Love Dolls!!!

God bless the EU

saraocallaghan

It seems strange that promissory estoppel isn’t a high rated question in the City Colleges night before notes! Only given a one out of five change of appearing.

niamh1612

saraocallaghan wrote: »

It seems strange that promissory estoppel isn’t a high rated question in the City Colleges night before notes! Only given a one out of five change of appearing.

I was thinking the same, i'm led to believe its safe to do proprietary without promissory, which i'm doing so fingers crossed.

saraocallaghan

niamh1612 wrote: »

I was thinking the same, i'm led to believe its safe to do proprietary without promissory, which i'm doing so fingers crossed.

I’m going to do both - just in case! Better safe than sorry.

LawGirl3434

saraocallaghan wrote: »

niamh1612 wrote: »

I was thinking the same, i'm led to believe its safe to do proprietary without promissory, which i'm doing so fingers crossed.

I’m going to do both - just in case! Better safe than sorry.

From looking at past papers - not sure she’s ever even drawn a distinction between them? In question problems it’s always proprietary and would always have to be really because it has to be a cause of action - were she to ask a problem on promissory I think you’d be going too far into contract law for her liking.

Then as an essay, she’s very focused on the test of unconscionability and seems to like asking that as a stand alone essay so there a big focus for me, have them as two separate topics so I don’t fall into the trap of writing a general essay on prop estoppel which she always gives out about in her reports

JennyF28

Criminal -

Hi everyone,

Would anyone be willing to share their thoughts/predictions on what may feature in the criminal paper? I've covered almost all of the course but just want to know if there's anything in particular that might come up...

Thank you!

holliek

EU

Does anyone have notes on equality? Trying to tackle is and its just not going in so any help greatly appreciated!!

legaltraineex

Is it safe to not cover Competition Law for EU? Covering pretty much everything else

iamanengine

JennyF28 wrote: »

Criminal -

Hi everyone,

Would anyone be willing to share their thoughts/predictions on what may feature in the criminal paper? I've covered almost all of the course but just want to know if there's anything in particular that might come up...

Thank you!

I think a Q on sexual offences and a Q on homicide are essentially 100% guaranteed, with a defence aspect possibly thrown in.

There is usually at least 2 Qs on a procedural aspect - Classification, bail/arrest/detention, courts, right to silence, presumption of innocence

jus_me

Does anyone have Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 I went to get mine that I already have from last year for my exam on Wednesday and can't find it anywhere!! totally paniking

nmurphy1441

Equity people....

Can someone shed some light into this question please???? Really can't get my head around it.....

October 2018- Question 2

David, a solicitor, recently suffered a fatal heart attack. Some time prior to his death, he added to monies in his own current account by lodging funds from two other accounts. One of those accounts contained monies from a trust of which he was a trustee, and the other contained the monies belonging to George, a client. Having mixed the said monies, he made numerous payments out of, and some lesser payments into, that current account. He also made certain payments from that account to the beneficiaries under the trust in accordance with the terms of thereof.
At the time of his death, there was insufficient funds to meet his personal debts and to meet George’s claim and the claim of the beneficiaries under the trust.

Advise George, making reference to relevant case law.

iamanengine

Does anyone have a criminal grid, please?

JennyF28

iamanengine wrote: »

Does anyone have a criminal grid, please?

Yes, I can send it to you in a PM if you want?

LawGirl3434

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Equity people....

Can someone shed some light into this question please???? Really can't get my head around it.....

October 2018- Question 2

David, a solicitor, recently suffered a fatal heart attack. Some time prior to his death, he added to monies in his own current account by lodging funds from two other accounts. One of those accounts contained monies from a trust of which he was a trustee, and the other contained the monies belonging to George, a client. Having mixed the said monies, he made numerous payments out of, and some lesser payments into, that current account. He also made certain payments from that account to the beneficiaries under the trust in accordance with the terms of thereof.
At the time of his death, there was insufficient funds to meet his personal debts and to meet George’s claim and the claim of the beneficiaries under the trust.

Advise George, making reference to relevant case law.

That’s a problem Q on tracing if you’re covering it! I think

supercreative

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Equity people....

Can someone shed some light into this question please???? Really can't get my head around it.....

October 2018- Question 2

David, a solicitor, recently suffered a fatal heart attack. Some time prior to his death, he added to monies in his own current account by lodging funds from two other accounts. One of those accounts contained monies from a trust of which he was a trustee, and the other contained the monies belonging to George, a client. Having mixed the said monies, he made numerous payments out of, and some lesser payments into, that current account. He also made certain payments from that account to the beneficiaries under the trust in accordance with the terms of thereof.
At the time of his death, there was insufficient funds to meet his personal debts and to meet George’s claim and the claim of the beneficiaries under the trust.

Advise George, making reference to relevant case law.

So first off it's a tracing question, it covers both tracing into an account where the principal and agent's monies are mixed and tracing into an account where two principals' monies are mixed, as well as the rule in James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder.

David has a fiduciary duty to the trust (T) and to George since he's a client so the requirement for a fiduciary relationship is satisfied (Sinclair v Brougham). Where a principal and agent's money are mixed you can assume the agent (in this case David) spends their own money first (Re Hallett's Estate). Let's call the amount of money David had in the account before he deposited George and T's money "Amount A" and the amount he had after lodging those funds "Amount B". If the payments out are equivalent to Amount A, then T and George's money are both safe because the court will presume David to have spent all of his own money first.

We don't know whether this is the case but let's see what happens if it's not and if some of George or T's money was spent; i.e., if anything more than Amount A was withdrawn from the account - presume for the moment that David did not put any money back into the account, we'll deal with that in a sec. The rule to be applied where two principals' monies are mixed together is the rule in Clayton's Case, which would mean that whichever party's money went in first (George or T) would be the first to be spent. This rule is only applied where it is convenient to do so (Barlow Clowes v Vaughan; Re Money Markets Int'l) and so otherwise the money that is left is distributed rateably between George and T.

However, we're not done yet. David spent some money from the account (Amount A) but then put some money back in - George and T are likely not entitled to claim from the money that went back in unless it can be shown that David put that money back in with an intention of replenishing the money he took from George or T (James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder). The court will find out what the lowest intermediate balance was in the account (the lowest amount of money that was in the account in the time between David lodging George and T's money and David dying) and George and T will only be able to claim from that money. I believe the money that was replenished goes to David's personal debts.

I'm not certain that this answers all of the issues but I think it's definitely enough to pass the question - corrections appreciated!

nmurphy1441

Thanks LawGirl3434 and supercreative!!!!!

JCormac

holliek wrote: »

EU

Does anyone have notes on equality? Trying to tackle is and its just not going in so any help greatly appreciated!!

If you're still stuck PM me and I'll send you the Doc I have on it.

iamanengine

JennyF28 wrote: »

Yes, I can send it to you in a PM if you want?

Thanks a mil, I sent you a PM.

supercreative

EU

Does anyone have any clue what sort of cases you'd use for Q1 March 2018? I've done a few cases on fundamental rights but the other principles (legal certainty, transparency, subsidiarity, proportionality, legitimate expectations) only have one or two cases in the manual I'm using so I'm confused as to what I should be talking about. Also the wording about protecting the individual feels like something I'd screw up in an exam so I'm a bit scared of it being worded like that lol

Jeremiah25

What are we covering for criminal?

Any tips/predictions?

LawGirl3434

supercreative wrote: »

EU

Does anyone have any clue what sort of cases you'd use for Q1 March 2018? I've done a few cases on fundamental rights but the other principles (legal certainty, transparency, subsidiarity, proportionality, legitimate expectations) only have one or two cases in the manual I'm using so I'm confused as to what I should be talking about. Also the wording about protecting the individual feels like something I'd screw up in an exam so I'm a bit scared of it being worded like that lol

Think you can be clever here - consider one of the fundamental principles is equality and you could have an essay prepped for that. Also in his marking scheme he flagged one year no one talks about proportionality in the context of FMOG and to be fair it’s evident in nearly every case.

Can definitely pull from others and be smart about it also be handy for protecting the individual as both FMOG consumer protection and equality naturally tie into that nicely

supercreative

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Think you can be clever here - consider one of the fundamental principles is equality and you could have an essay prepped for that. Also in his marking scheme he flagged one year no one talks about proportionality in the context of FMOG and to be fair it’s evident in nearly every case.

Can definitely pull from others and be smart about it also be handy for protecting the individual as both FMOG consumer protection and equality naturally tie into that nicely

That is a v good point, thank you!

LawBoy2018

Criminal Law

What's the difference between handling under S.17 of the 2001 Act and Possession under S.18??

spygirl

-Just wondering if anyone else ordered Blackstones consolidated version of eu treaties and legislation. 2019-2020
Was just about to start tabbing etc and am noticed it reads like a book, rather then a list of treaty articles as per Schutze.
Anyone else using this one or could describe what their version reads like would be very grateful. Currently panicking and finding it hard to navigate for tabbing purposes.

LawGirl3434

Equity

Does anyone have a brief note on any of the following cases for cy-pres:

Re Jordan
Re Jenkins
Re Harwood

Thanks in advance

Jeremiah25

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Criminal Law

What's the difference between handling under S.17 of the 2001 Act and Possession under S.18??

There are further parameters in relation to the offence laid out in S.17.

S.18 specifies possessing stolen property knowing that it was/being reckless as to whether stolen whereas S.17 includes that along with if they (a) dishoneslty receive said propery or (b) undertakes in it renention/removal.

I think that's it anyway? Hope that's of some help!

Breacnua

saraocallaghan wrote: »

I’m going to do both - just in case! Better safe than sorry.

in terms of equity you mean i take it ? not the contract exam?

Breacnua

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

There are further parameters in relation to the offence laid out in S.17.

S.18 specifies possessing stolen property knowing that it was/being reckless as to whether stolen whereas S.17 includes that along with if they (a) dishoneslty receive said propery or (b) undertakes in it renention/removal.

I think that's it anyway? Hope that's of some help!

in a PQ where one is handling stolen goods would you say they could be charged under both ?

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What are we covering for criminal?

Any tips/predictions?

I'm covering:

Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal
Property Offences
Defences
AR/MR
Classifications/Characteristics
Courts
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Right to Silence
Presumption of Innocence

What are other people covering? I'm thinking the above should be enough but would like to hear others thoughts

LawBoy2018

How annoying are the people on this who say stuff like:

"I've covered every topic, know 300 cases, know the statute word for word and have been studying for 75 years.. Do ye think that's enough? ///"

Weird flex but mmmk