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

starbar91

Anyone know where I could get the black stone EU law directives book that u can bring into the exam?!

Robbo

starbar91 wrote: »

Anyone know where I could get the black stone EU law directives book that u can bring into the exam?!

As below:

Robbo wrote: »

Amazon or Easons (which has the ability to check if your local shop has it in stock).

Any college bookshop should have it too. You'll be grand with any version from about 2012 onwards.

BASHBAG

Hey,

I'm tight for time getting through all the material and considering just going with what I have for equity.

1. Interlocutary Injunctions
2. 3 Certainties
3. Charitable Trusts
4. Secret Trusts
5. Trusteeship
6. Tracing
7. Undue Influence
8. Specific Performance
9. Proprietary Estoppell
10. Recission
11. Rectification

Anything major that I really should be including? Thanks for any advice!

yournerd

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

I'm tight for time getting through all the material and considering just going with what I have for equity.

1. Interlocutary Injunctions
2. 3 Certainties
3. Charitable Trusts
4. Secret Trusts
5. Trusteeship
6. Tracing
7. Undue Influence
8. Specific Performance
9. Proprietary Estoppell
10. Recission
11. Rectification

Anything major that I really should be including? Thanks for any advice!

Any tort suggestions?

Paleblood

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

I'm tight for time getting through all the material and considering just going with what I have for equity.

1. Interlocutary Injunctions
2. 3 Certainties
3. Charitable Trusts
4. Secret Trusts
5. Trusteeship
6. Tracing
7. Undue Influence
8. Specific Performance
9. Proprietary Estoppell
10. Recission
11. Rectification

Anything major that I really should be including? Thanks for any advice!

Personally I think you have to study the entire injunctions section. You know something from it is coming up, so that's 20% of the exam. Do you really want to take the chance on just interloc? Yes, it's the most likely, but you are screwed if it's anything else. Maybe cut out Mareva at a push, because it appeared last year. but have everything else.

Lumi77

DMC and the rule in Strong v Bird

Lumi77

Paleblood wrote: »

Personally I think you have to study the entire injunctions section. You know something from it is coming up, so that's 20% of the exam. Do you really want to take the chance on just interloc? Yes, it's the most likely, but you are screwed if it's anything else. Maybe cut out Mareva at a push, because it appeared last year. but have everything else.

I agree maybe if you do Quia Timet and Anton Piller also...

jazzypatty89

Lumi77 wrote: »

DMC and the rule in Strong v Bird

Those both came up last sitting.

Lumi77

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

Those both came up last sitting.

I know, I was in it, I am still redoing ,they are important topics and was advised to redo it.

Paleblood

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

Those both came up last sitting.

Strong v Bird was on the March 2017 paper? I have an up-to-date City Colleges grid that says it hasn't been on the past two papers?

jazzypatty89

Paleblood wrote: »

Strong v Bird was on the March 2017 paper? I have an up-to-date City Colleges grid that says it hasn't been on the past two papers?

It was part of Question 7 - do you have the most recent paper?
It just asked you to discuss strong v bird as part three of the question.

BASHBAG

Paleblood wrote: »

Personally I think you have to study the entire injunctions section. You know something from it is coming up, so that's 20% of the exam. Do you really want to take the chance on just interloc? Yes, it's the most likely, but you are screwed if it's anything else. Maybe cut out Mareva at a push, because it appeared last year. but have everything else.

Thanks for the advice. Didn't mean to put down "interlocutary" before injunctions there (must be from habit) I have covered QT and Mareva also. I suppose I may aswell do Anton Pillar to be safe.

Paleblood

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

It was part of Question 7 - do you have the most recent paper?
It just asked you to discuss strong v bird as part three of the question.

Cheers for that. I hope there's no more mistakes on this bloody grid I'm working off!

Paleblood

BASHBAG wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. Didn't mean to put down "interlocutary" before injunctions there (must be from habit) I have covered QT and Mareva also. I suppose I may aswell do Anton Pillar to be safe.

Definitely do AP as well. It's the smallest part of the chapter. Imagine how you'd feel in the exam if it came up, and you'd prepared the other 90% of the chapter!

If I were you I'd also consider another trust. Resulting is very straight forward. Break it down into sections.

- Re Andrews/Osaba
- Surplus of Funds
- Quistclose Trust
- Presumed Resulting Trust
- Joint Deposit Accounts
- Presumption of Advancement.

At least one of those has appeared on every paper since April 2008, with the exception of October 2016. Last year it was a problem question on the Presumption of Advancement.

It appears more as a note question so perhaps don't think of it as a 20 mark topic. On the other hand there's been years where it's been an aspect of an essay, a problem and a note question. That's three questions on a single papers! In terms of bang for your buck you won't do much better than resulting trusts.

supersaint3

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

I'm tight for time getting through all the material and considering just going with what I have for equity.

1. Interlocutary Injunctions
2. 3 Certainties
3. Charitable Trusts
4. Secret Trusts
5. Trusteeship
6. Tracing
7. Undue Influence
8. Specific Performance
9. Proprietary Estoppell
10. Recission
11. Rectification

Anything major that I really should be including? Thanks for any advice!

That's more than im doing-

Injunctions
Express trysts
Charitable trusts
Resulting trusts
Trusteeship
Tracing
Specific performance
Constructive trusts


Anyone have any idea how to cut down injunctions a bit? What came up in Oct 16/ mar 17?

supersaint3

supersaint3 wrote: »

That's more than im doing-

Injunctions
Express trysts
Charitable trusts
Resulting trusts
Trusteeship
Tracing
Specific performance
Constructive trusts


Anyone have any idea how to cut down injunctions a bit? What came up in Oct 16/ mar 17?

Oh sorry just seen lumi posts, which are noted!

Paleblood

Guys when you say 'Charitable trusts' I hope you mean Charitable, Cy-Pres and Non-Charitable Trusts. They need to be studied together as a block.

icsheep

Company Law

Sorry if this super stupid (and I admit I haven't done much reading) but I am confused as to when Ordinary Resolution applies and when Special applies with respect to Shareholders' interaction with the Board or the company.

Also, any tips on memorising when the Opt-in provisions can come into play? Like what examinable areas of company law should I keep an eye out for in finding out whether that applies.

Apologies if this makes no sense. I am mainly looking to find out the relevant Sections I should be tabbing

BASHBAG

Paleblood wrote: »

Definitely do AP as well. It's the smallest part of the chapter. Imagine how you'd feel in the exam if it came up, and you'd prepared the other 90% of the chapter!

If I were you I'd also consider another trust. Resulting is very straight forward. Break it down into sections.

- Re Andrews/Osaba
- Surplus of Funds
- Quistclose Trust
- Presumed Resulting Trust
- Joint Deposit Accounts
- Presumption of Advancement.

At least one of those has appeared on every paper since April 2008, with the exception of October 2016. Last year it was a problem question on the Presumption of Advancement.

It appears more as a note question so perhaps don't think of it as a 20 mark topic. On the other hand there's been years where it's been an aspect of an essay, a problem and a note question. That's three questions on a single papers! In terms of bang for your buck you won't do much better than resulting trusts.

Thanks a million for advice. I'll hopefully be able to get trough over the next few evenings.

Tony_TwoLegs

supersaint3 wrote: »

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

I'm tight for time getting through all the material and considering just going with what I have for equity.

1. Interlocutary Injunctions
2. 3 Certainties
3. Charitable Trusts
4. Secret Trusts
5. Trusteeship
6. Tracing
7. Undue Influence
8. Specific Performance
9. Proprietary Estoppell
10. Recission
11. Rectification

Anything major that I really should be including? Thanks for any advice!

That's more than im doing-

Injunctions
Express trysts
Charitable trusts
Resulting trusts
Trusteeship
Tracing
Specific performance
Constructive trusts


Anyone have any idea how to cut down injunctions a bit? What came up in Oct 16/ mar 17?

October was a Quia Timet PQ
March a Mareva essay.
Got 46 in March / 48 on appeal.
😢

Paleblood

I'm relying almost exclusively on flash cards for these exams. They force you to summarise and reduce. My undergrad A4 notes were always too ambitious. I didn't remember a quarter of them. But I'm surprised by just how quick the flash cards are drilling the cases into my head. Anyone else using them?

Robbie25808

Company Law:

Anyone able to explain the Re JD Brian Ltd case? I just cant understand it at all.

starbar91

This is really frustrating me, any help on this would be much appreciated:

"On Tuesday Ross hears Sam is selling bike. After a brief discussion, Ross promises to pay Sam €200 for the bike, payment on delivery, and Sam promises to deliver the bike the following Saturday. However, on Wednesday Sam calls Ross to tell him he has changed mind and no longer wants to sell bike. He claims the offer was a unilateral one and Ross has not yet performed his part of the deal or provided any consideration, so he is entitled to change mind. Ross wants to sue Sam for breach of contract. Advise Ross"

Am I wrong in saying that Ross could seek specific performance? Any explanatations that you can give would be very much appreciated. This has ruined an hour of study for me!

yournerd

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Company Law:

Anyone able to explain the Re JD Brian Ltd case? I just cant understand it at all.

I think this case demonstrates that
1. you can give express notice for crystallisation of a floating charge to occur. this is different to other events as its agreed on beforehand.
2. if a floating charge is changed into a fixed charge through express notice, it gains priority over other secured creditors thus it is first in line ahead of Revenue. But this was intervened by the Finance Act so that Revenue is first in line.

thats my understanding!

Robbie25808

yournerd wrote: »

I think this case demonstrates that
1. you can give express notice for crystallisation of a floating charge to occur. this is different to other events as its agreed on beforehand.
2. if a floating charge is changed into a fixed charge through express notice, it gains priority over other secured creditors thus it is first in line ahead of Revenue. But this was intervened by the Finance Act so that Revenue is first in line.

thats my understanding!

So is it basically a contract that they had? So before there is any actual liquidation you can give express notice?
So in this case basically the bank got in ahead of the secured creditors?

But now this case is not worthy because the finance act? Be good if the manuals included that haha.

Still confusing tbh but thanks for your help. I think its just a confusing case.

Robbie25808

starbar91 wrote: »

This is really frustrating me, any help on this would be much appreciated:

"On Tuesday Ross hears Sam is selling bike. After a brief discussion, Ross promises to pay Sam €200 for the bike, payment on delivery, and Sam promises to deliver the bike the following Saturday. However, on Wednesday Sam calls Ross to tell him he has changed mind and no longer wants to sell bike. He claims the offer was a unilateral one and Ross has not yet performed his part of the deal or provided any consideration, so he is entitled to change mind. Ross wants to sue Sam for breach of contract. Advise Ross"

Am I wrong in saying that Ross could seek specific performance? Any explanatations that you can give would be very much appreciated. This has ruined an hour of study for me!

I have not done this for a while but i presume he will not be able to claim for SP.
There was no contract in place. There was an offer, acceptance but no consideration. If he handed over money he could have ordered SP. If they had a written contract or something like that.
Also, it appears that it is not a sale from a business which might have an impact but not sure on this.

yournerd

Robbie25808 wrote: »

So is it basically a contract that they had? So before there is any actual liquidation you can give express notice?
So in this case basically the bank got in ahead of the secured creditors?

But now this case is not worthy because the finance act? Be good if the manuals included that haha.

Still confusing tbh but thanks for your help. I think its just a confusing case.

Yeah it was in the terms of the debenture agreement so they agreed on it beforehand. Yeah exactly. I think it pointed out that the bank there got first in line. But the Finance Act I think S1001 gives the Revenue priority but did not in this case.
Supreme Court overturned the decision that said once a floating charge had crystallised on foot of a prior written notice, before the windind up, the debenture holder takes priority over preferential creditors.
This is my favourite chapter so I will be highly disappointed if I got this wrong haha.

Katielucia1131

Any tips for contract law? I didn't do a course so have no clue what's expected! Thanks

jazzypatty89

Hi all - does anyone happen to have the examiners report for October 2016 for Equity that they could send me? Seem to be missing that one
Also - sample answers for Oct 2016 and March 2017 would be very helpful as well.
Thanks a mill!

Mayo91

FOR TORT

Anyone whos doing Trespass to Land:

Are you jsut doing Nuisance or are you doing it all? Trying to cut down here and there. Nuisance seems to be most common.

Mod - Sorry, pls do not discuss lecturers here