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

ArthurDayne

So for Contract I've covered:
Offer/Acceptance/Certainty of Terms
Consideration
Estoppel
Capacity (of minors)
Terms
Exemption Clauses
Consumer Contracts
Misrep
Mistake
Discharge
Remedies

Anyone think that's enough or should I be delving into duress and undue influence too?? Bearing in mind that I need to look at Equity today too to have my final flashcards ready for straight after Contract. . . .

nmwcc

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So for Contract I've covered:
Offer/Acceptance/Certainty of Terms
Consideration
Estoppel
Capacity (of minors)
Terms
Exemption Clauses
Consumer Contracts
Misrep
Mistake
Discharge
Remedies

Anyone think that's enough or should I be delving into duress and undue influence too?? Bearing in mind that I need to look at Equity today too to have my final flashcards ready for straight after Contract. . . .

I wonder could you make a stab at undue influence from your knowledge of rescission in Equity?

annmc882

nmwcc wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So for Contract I've covered:
Offer/Acceptance/Certainty of Terms
Consideration
Estoppel
Capacity (of minors)
Terms
Exemption Clauses
Consumer Contracts
Misrep
Mistake
Discharge
Remedies

Anyone think that's enough or should I be delving into duress and undue influence too?? Bearing in mind that I need to look at Equity today too to have my final flashcards ready for straight after Contract. . . .

I wonder could you make a stab at undue influence from your knowledge of rescission in Equity?

why have u certainty of terms with offer and acceptance

annmc882

What did people think of the intestacy question in property today

colinfe12018

Hi, I will be sitting Criminal, Equity and Property in March 2018. I would greatly appreciate if someone could mail me exam grids for those subjects. I have Independent manuals, exam papers and examiner reports. I have corrected homework submitted to Independent for Property and Criminal. If I can be of assistance to anyone please ask.

Best of luck to all who sat / currently sitting the autumn exams.

Kind regards

Colin

Paleblood

I made a balls of the easement question, and having been already caught for time it only ranks as a half question, and a bad one at that.

I mentioned the Re Ellensborough test, the Wong v Beaumount Properties case and the high standard when it comes to claiming an easement of necessity.

The question mentioned that the landlord 'retained' some of the property for himself, so I blurted out a paragraph about acquisition by express reservation, but I don't know why.

Crucially, I said that no easement could arise because the landlord owned both properties, and according to the third limb of Re Ellensborough the dominant and servient tenements cannot be owned by the same person. But that was total guesswork. I suspect that the fact it was a lease added some sort of nuance that I just didn't understand.

Anyway, this isn't a post-mortem. What's done is done. I'm just curious at to what my approach should have been.

So I had three good questions, one rather confused, but case-law heavy fourth, and that mini-me easement problem as my fifth.

Fingers crossed.

ArthurDayne

annmc882 wrote: »

why have u certainty of terms with offer and acceptance

Not quite sure why I put that in there . . . Just the way I had it listed for whatever reason. Just hoping that this is enough to see me through, undue influence will have to wait until tonight for a look over.

Lumi77

Paleblood wrote: »

I made a balls of the easement question, and having been already caught for time it only ranks as a half question, and a bad one at that.

I mentioned the Re Ellensborough test, the Wong v Beaumount Properties case and the high standard when it comes to claiming an easement of necessity.

The question mentioned that the landlord 'retained' some of the property for himself, so I blurted out a paragraph about acquisition about express reservation, but I don't know why.

Crucially, I said that no easement could arise because the landlord owned both properties, and according to the third limb of Re Ellensborough the dominant and servient tenements cannot be owned by the same person. But that was total guesswork. I suspect that the fact it was a lease added some sort of nuance that I just didn't understand.

Anyway, this isn't a post-mortam. What's done is done. I'm just curious at to what my approach should have been.

So I had three good questions, one rather confused, but case-law heavy fourth, and that mini-me easement problem as my fifth.

Fingers crossed.

I made a mess of it too had some case law the tests and the wong case so you are not the only one don't worry.
I was hoping that it won't come up but there you go and I got stuck on it when I started it
I started a 6th question just to be covered but is probably not considered the one with the notes
So fingers crossed

LadyCharlie

Dsalmon91 wrote: »

In relation to today's property exam, can someone please tell me what question 2 and what question 8 were in relation to. Think I may have messed up with a question.

Question 2 was Adverse Possession and question two was on Easements.

Lumi77

Dsalmon91 wrote: »

In relation to today's property exam, can someone please tell me what question 2 and what question 8 were in relation to. Think I may have messed up with a question.

Don't have the paper in front of me but I think question 2 was adverse possession
And 8 was easments

MeganC1554

Question two was very similar to the case of McMahon v Kerry council which is adverse possession through proprietary estoppel. In a case that was confined to its own facts. I’m assuming one would have went down that path as Finjay J said that the adverse possession may be acquired on the expiration of 12 years. Question no.2 only involved the time frame from 2002 until 2010 so adverse possession couldn’t happen until the expiration of 12 years.

Paleblood

MeganC1554 wrote: »

Question two was very similar to the case of McMahon v Kerry council which is adverse possession through proprietary estoppel. In a case that was confined to its own facts. I’m assuming one would have went down that path as Finjay J said that the adverse possession may be acquired on the expiration of 12 years. Question no.2 only involved the time frame from 2002 until 2010 so adverse possession couldn’t happen until the expiration of 12 years.

No, the time-frame was from 2002 to 2017. I made that mistake and mangled my answer trying to turn it around. I had to cross out two full paragraphs. It looked a right mess but I hope the examiner will appreciate the fact that I spotted my error and pulled back from it.

The question began in 2002 when Jack sold one of his fields to Champion Developments Ltd.

In 2008 Jack leased the field to his neighbour, Frank.

In 2010 the CEO of Champion Developments drove by the field, stopped to look over the gate at the structures Frank had erected, then had his solicitor write to Frank asserting title - neither of which is good enough to 'stop the clock'.

The final paragraph states "At the beginning of this year..." meaning you're advising Champion from now, 2017.

So, Jack first took possession of the land from Champion 15 years ago, meaning the 12 year time period has been met. The key question, as I see it, is whether he actually met the other requirements to qualify as an adverse possessor.

I said that perhaps Jack has a claim because the 12 years have passed and Champion never asserted their title in an effective way. But I was unsure if Jack had the requisite animus possidendi because he seemed very indifferent to his possession of the property. On the other hand, he had leased the property to Frank so perhaps that's animus possidendi.

Then I looked at Frank. He took out the lease on the property 9 years ago and, in the second-last paragraph, said he would like to stay on the land. So the clock is still running as far as he's concerned. However I think the fact that he's a lease-holder precludes him from ever claiming adverse possession because how could someone, who believes he is there under a lease agreement, claim he had an intention to "possess the land to the exclusion of all others".

We know from Murphy v Murphy that the time can begin to run without you even knowing it, but he still doesn't have animus possidendi. In fact, when Champion wrote to him telling him to get off the property he said he had intended on leaving anyway. He doesn't sound like someone that's digging his heals in for the long haul.

In any event I advised Champion to issue proceedings against him and that will end any chance he had of accumulating 12 years, whether he intended to or not.

Finally, the facts refer to Champion's intention to build a motorway there eventually. I'm not sure if that's a red herring or not, but it's clearly there to invite discussion of Leigh v Jack, Lynch v Cork County Council, the Durack Manufacturing case that slightly qualified Lynch and the Dundalk and Feamy (spelling?) cases that followed Lynch and Durack. I made reference to those cases, but only half-heartedly because I was out of time, but they're obviously there as some sort of potential defence available to Champion in the event that Jack ends up claiming adverse possession.

Anyway, I didn't make a complete balls of it, but it wasn't a particularly good answer either. I'm just hoping that mentioning all of the above cases and the animus possidendi issues get me over the line. A very sneaky question.

mockman

ArthurDayne wrote: »

You need to think carefully also about the fact that you need to pass at least 3 on your first sitting or you're right back to square one. On that basis, I would go with Property, Criminal and then either Equity/Contract. Depending then on the timetable, I would do either EU or Constitutional as a fourth. The key is trying to avoid a scenario of 3-in-a-row, which I can assure you is absolute punishment for the mind and soul. 2-in-a-row isn't pretty either but it can be hard to avoid.

Some people sat Company, Constitutional & EU in consecutive days this sitting and all I can say is, they have my undying admiration for surviving that week with their sanity [presumably] intact.

4 in a row isn't great either and then 2 days for a fifth. Working the timetable is a must.

Lumi77

Paleblood wrote: »

No, the time-frame was from 2002 to 2017. I made that mistake and mangled my answer trying to turn it around. I had to cross out two full paragraphs. It looked a right mess but I hope the examiner will appreciate the fact that I spotted my error and pulled back from it.

The question began in 2002 when Jack sold one of his fields to Champion Developments Ltd.

In 2008 Jack leased the field to his neighbour, Frank.

In 2010 the CEO of Champion Developments drove by the field, stopped to look over the gate at the structures Frank had erected, then had his solicitor write to Frank asserting title - neither of which is good enough to 'stop the clock'.

The final paragraph states "At the beginning of this year..." meaning you're advising Champion from now, 2017.

So, Jack first took possession of the land from Champion 15 years ago, meaning the 12 year time period has been met. The key question, as I see it, is whether he actually met the other requirements to qualify as an adverse possessor.

I said that perhaps Jack has a claim because the 12 years have passed and Champion never asserted their title in an effective way. But I was unsure if Jack had the requisite animus possidendi because he seemed very indifferent to his possession of the property. On the other hand, he had leased the property to Frank so perhaps that's animus possidendi.

Then I looked at Frank. He took out the lease on the property 9 years ago and, in the second-last paragraph, said he would like to stay on the land. So the clock is still running as far as he's concerned. However I think the fact that he's a lease-holder precludes him from ever claiming adverse possession because how could someone, who believes he is there under a lease agreement, claim he had an intention to "possess the land to the exclusion of all others".

We know from Murphy v Murphy that the time can begin to run without you even knowing it, but he still doesn't have animus possidendi. In fact, when Champion wrote to him telling him to get off the property he said he had intended on leaving anyway. He doesn't sound like someone that's digging his heals in for the long haul.

In any event I advised Champion to issue proceedings against him and that will end any chance he had of accumulating 12 years, whether he intended to or not.

Finally, the facts refer to Champion's intention to build a motorway there eventually. I'm not sure if that's a red herring or not, but it's clearly there to invite discussion of Leigh v Jack, Lynch v Cork County Council, the Durack Manufacturing case that slightly qualified Lynch and the Dundalk and Feamy (spelling?) cases that followed Lynch and Durack. I made reference to those cases, but only half-heartedly because I was out of time, but they're obviously there as some sort of potential defence available to Champion in the event that Jack ends up claiming adverse possession.

Anyway, I didn't make a complete balls of it, but it wasn't a particularly good answer either. I'm just hoping that mentioning all of the above cases and the animus possidendi issues get me over the line. A very sneaky question.

That is how I approached it too. There was successive squatting but according to Feamy case just looking over the fence stops adverse possession and the clock running.
Then in Palfrey v Palfrey to be adverse possession needs to be dispossession, discontinuance and animus possendi.
So I concluded that no adverse possession occurred due to actions taken and all the case law you gave.
Hoping I went the right way...

Paleblood

Lumi77 wrote: »

That is how I approached it too. There was successive squatting but according to Feamy case just looking over the fence stops adverse possession and the clock running.
Then in Palfrey v Palfrey to be adverse possession needs to be dispossession, discontinuance and animus possendi.
So I concluded that no adverse possession occurred due to actions taken and all the case law you gave.
Hoping I went the right way...

There's obviously a 'right' answer in the eyes of the examiner and the big marks will go to anyone that provided it, but it's a multifaceted question that quite deliberately sets up a trap regarding the time period. So I'm sure just showing a knowledge of the area and applying the principles pulled from the case law will be enough to earn a decent mark.

Does anyone know that pass rate for Property? It was a fair paper which leads me to believe (meaning I hope) it's a fair examiner.

vita.s

What are people leaving out in Equity?

I am planning on leaving out bits of different chapter, but then I feel like that's stupid, because even if a topic I've studied comes up I might not be able to answer.

I will probably leave out
Cy-press
Mareva and Anton Piller
Rescission for mistake and misrepresentation
And then Trustees and Estoppel Chapters all together.

Do you think that's too much to leave out?

Paleblood

vita.s wrote: »

What are people leaving out in Equity?

I am planning on leaving out bits of different chapter, but then I feel like that's stupid, because even if a topic I've studied comes up I might not be able to answer.

I will probably leave out
Cy-press
Mareva and Anton Piller
Rescission for mistake and misrepresentation
And then Trustees and Estoppel Chapters all together.

Do you think that's too much to leave out?

There's no sense in leaving out Cy Pres and covering Charities and Purpose Trusts because they all form one block. I know it came up last year but you're taking a massive chance. It's a small topic. Get the basic principle and two or three cases and at least have it there as an emergency.

ArthurDayne

Contract

Does anyone have any tips on identifying the issues in Contract? Looking through the past papers here and the issues at hand are reasonably non-complex but I'm just hoping to identify patterns to avoid the dreaded 'first 5 minute freeze' .

Any pointers appreciated.

Lumi77

vita.s wrote: »

What are people leaving out in Equity?

I am planning on leaving out bits of different chapter, but then I feel like that's stupid, because even if a topic I've studied comes up I might not be able to answer.

I will probably leave out
Cy-press
Mareva and Anton Piller
Rescission for mistake and misrepresentation
And then Trustees and Estoppel Chapters all together.

Do you think that's too much to leave out?

DMC and undue influence was in last paper. I just have no idea as I thought was my best paper and was my only fail with 3 points. So I am covering everything as mad as it seems as I did 5 exams this time.

nmwcc

Does one need to cover CESL in detail for consumer law?

annmc882

nmwcc wrote: »

Does one need to cover CESL in detail for consumer law?

European stuff?

nmwcc

annmc882 wrote: »

European stuff?

It's one of them... The Regulation of Common European Sales is the one I am wondering about

I know the 1995 Regulations and 2013 regulations are a must

annmc882

I'd say you will be ok with what u have . just know what it is in case a real opened ended question comes up in an essay

annmc882

I'm still wondering this



. a problem question came up on succession based around partial intestacy.
coedcil wasn't properly excecuted so his friend paul was left 50,000 in the will leaving 450,000.
Matthew a bachelor had an estate of 500,000. parents dead. 3 sisters. one sister Lucy is estranged. 2 sisters dead, one has 2 kids alive, other has 2 grand kids alive.



my question is if Lucy can't be found what happens her 150, 000 ?

does it go to the state as it's not claimed or does it go back into the estate and shared out amount dived back to the other sisters and shared out to their Lineage.

many people got confused as in the question she said paul got married which some took to mean will was revoked al together but it wasn't the deceased that got married.

one more question, Jenny which later, 2 months after matthews will was made gkt married to paul. she was a witness to the will. I understand that this will not affect her now husband getting the 50,000 as she was in no way benefiting from the will and may not have known what was in the will. she was a witness alright but received nothing herself from the will.


I'm wondering where law stands with the long lost sister lucy as it's really playing on my mind this eve.

you might be able to shed light on it

Thanks.

Anastaciag94

CESL regulations were abandoned

icsheep

Any predictions for Equity anyone? I am hoping a question on Charitable Trusts is in order? Mandatory/Interlocutory Injunctions, possibly?

Lumi77

annmc882 wrote: »

I'm still wondering this



. a problem question came up on succession based around partial intestacy.
coedcil wasn't properly excecuted so his friend paul was left 50,000 in the will leaving 450,000.
Matthew a bachelor had an estate of 500,000. parents dead. 3 sisters. one sister Lucy is estranged. 2 sisters dead, one has 2 kids alive, other has 2 grand kids alive.



my question is if Lucy can't be found what happens her 150, 000 ?

does it go to the state as it's not claimed or does it go back into the estate and shared out amount dived back to the other sisters and shared out to their Lineage.

many people got confused as in the question she said paul got married which some took to mean will was revoked al together but it wasn't the deceased that got married.

one more question, Jenny which later, 2 months after matthews will was made gkt married to paul. she was a witness to the will. I understand that this will not affect her now husband getting the 50,000 as she was in no way benefiting from the will and may not have known what was in the will. she was a witness alright but received nothing herself from the will.


I'm wondering where law stands with the long lost sister lucy as it's really playing on my mind this eve.

you might be able to shed light on it

Thanks.

I said that it goes back to the estate and divided accordingly.
On the witness matter they married after signing so it does not affect it.

annmc882

it prob goes into the estate alright
oh well

Raoisle1900

annmc882 wrote: »

I'm still wondering this



. a problem question came up on succession based around partial intestacy.
coedcil wasn't properly excecuted so his friend paul was left 50,000 in the will leaving 450,000.
Matthew a bachelor had an estate of 500,000. parents dead. 3 sisters. one sister Lucy is estranged. 2 sisters dead, one has 2 kids alive, other has 2 grand kids alive.



my question is if Lucy can't be found what happens her 150, 000 ?

does it go to the state as it's not claimed or does it go back into the estate and shared out amount dived back to the other sisters and shared out to their Lineage.

many people got confused as in the question she said paul got married which some took to mean will was revoked al together but it wasn't the deceased that got married.

one more question, Jenny which later, 2 months after matthews will was made gkt married to paul. she was a witness to the will. I understand that this will not affect her now husband getting the 50,000 as she was in no way benefiting from the will and may not have known what was in the will. she was a witness alright but received nothing herself from the will.


I'm wondering where law stands with the long lost sister lucy as it's really playing on my mind this eve.

you might be able to shed light on it

Thanks.

Hi,

I interpreted this question slightly differently. I said that as the original will was witnessed by his best friend's spouse this rendered the gift of 50k invalid (s82).

As a consequence of this, Matthew died intestate. So will would be distributed as per s69, ie 250k for sister who's still alive and 125k each for the kids of the deceased sister.

annmc882

the spouse, I took this not to make any difference as she did not benefit but her husband now affects that ?

lucy is still alive though and some effort should be made to find her.
if she's not found it should go back to next in line which is the family of the other two sisters or if Lucy is found to be dead her next of kin.

in the exam I didn't write it out that we'll and was under time pressure so just write the names and what they would get and briefly explained it.

I think I made a balls of what was an easy question.

better move on to.contract now.