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

annmc882

I made a balls of it so.

annmc882

I made a balls of it so. s82 counted so it was 500 / 3 and if Lucy wasn't found / 2 and split to those sisters heirs



that answers that so

annmc882

I made a balls of it so. s82 counted so it was 500 / 3 and if Lucy wasn't found / 2 and split to those sisters heirs



that answers that so

bluntspoon

nmwcc wrote: »

court I possibly leave Penalty clauses out and be okay for tomorrow?

I won't advise you one way or the other (disclaimer - I've studied the topic myself) but it's come up twice in a row now so the odds suggest it won't come up again this time.

Dsalmon91

Any predictions for equity.

vita.s

Dsalmon91 wrote: »

Any predictions for equity.

I'm banking on SP.
I think Constructive trusts are due to show up and Charitable purposes for Resulting trusts.

I really hope Trusteeship doesn't show - I'm not covering it.

Lumi77

vita.s wrote: »

I'm banking on SP.
I think Constructive trusts are due to show up and Charitable purposes for Resulting trusts.

I really hope Trusteeship doesn't show - I'm not covering it.

Was in the last paper so I d say you are safe

BASHBAG

vita.s wrote: »

I'm banking on SP.
I think Constructive trusts are due to show up and Charitable purposes for Resulting trusts.

I really hope Trusteeship doesn't show - I'm not covering it.

Just wondering what you're focusing on within SP. Am I right in thinking it's generally only contracts requiring supervision and defences that come up?

I'm doing some severe gambling for this exam!!!

ArthurDayne

Really starting to think I need exam technique training. I wrote damn all in that contract paper and even at that just couldn't figure what all the issues were. Ah well....taxi back to the flat for the last hurrah in the morning.

Paleblood

I'm not sure how that went. I missed out on some of the second aspects of the question so I've really limited the amount of marks available to me. On the flip side I nearly had a nervous breakdown last night so I'm just glad that I'm still standing for Equity tomorrow. If I'm going down I'm going down swinging.

Paleblood

Who was the guy down the back leaving for a piss every half hour?

MOD
Pls don't discuss other candidates. Have deleted second sentence of your post for obvious reasons

ArthurDayne

Paleblood wrote: »

I'm not sure how went. I missed out on some of the second aspects of the question so I've really limited the amount of marks available to me. On the flip side I nearly had a nervous breakdown last night so I'm just glad that I'm still standing for equity tomorrow. If I'm going down I'm going down swinging.

To be honest, and I mean this in the most non-sadistic way possible, I am somewhat glad you said that as I feel exactly the same. The mixing of topics leaves you second-guessing yourself, which isnt ideal for a 30 mins per question context.

And likewise, I'm normally a fairly collected non-emotional guy and 11pm last night I was genuinely cracking. So I hope that provides you with some comfort too haha

Anyway --- is anyone leaving anything out for Equity????

shellbm

Has anyone ever passed contract with a severe lack of case law?? My question on implied terms dicussed the officious bystander, buisness efficacy, customary practice and then implied terms as a matter of law and then the Upmost Good Faith implied term... I had a total of 4 cases for the entire answer.

One of my answers had 3 cases.

Does anyone know could I possibly pass or should I not have my hopes up?

yournerd

Leaving out estoppel and undue influence in equity.
Is there anything else??

The Talking Bread

Paleblood wrote: »

Who was the guy down the back leaving for a piss every half hour?

I wasn't there today and I am not sure which block you are referring to but that Block B (I think its B anyway!) (the large one) is very badly ventilated and with nerves, many people would need to even step out and compose themselves with a breather every now and then, not necessarily going for a p*ss. It clears the head a lot and I guess to stand outside for a moment, for the sake of 2 minutes less per question it is invaluable for some.

Tony_TwoLegs

yournerd wrote: »

Leaving out estoppel and undue influence in equity.
Is there anything else??

I think Undue skipped the last one. Maybe give it a look

Tony_TwoLegs

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Paleblood wrote: »

I'm not sure how went. I missed out on some of the second aspects of the question so I've really limited the amount of marks available to me. On the flip side I nearly had a nervous breakdown last night so I'm just glad that I'm still standing for equity tomorrow. If I'm going down I'm going down swinging.

To be honest, and I mean this in the most non-sadistic way possible, I am somewhat glad you said that as I feel exactly the same. The mixing of topics leaves you second-guessing yourself, which isnt ideal for a 30 mins per question context.

And likewise, I'm normally a fairly collected non-emotional guy and 11pm last night I was genuinely cracking. So I hope that provides you with some comfort too haha

Anyway --- is anyone leaving anything out for Equity????

That Contract paper threw me too. I feel I missed key points but not too sure where. Can only see Mistake in 3B. Had the foggy brain AHH WHAT'S THAT CASE moment a few times.
Sure look it's done. Up since 4am cramming.
Same again for tomorrow. Resitting Equity. I'm leaving out Mareva, Cy Pres as an essay, DMC, Trusteeship.

Tony_TwoLegs

shellbm wrote: »

Has anyone ever passed contract with a severe lack of case law?? My question on implied terms dicussed the officious bystander, buisness efficacy, customary practice and then implied terms as a matter of law and then the Upmost Good Faith implied term... I had a total of 4 cases for the entire answer.

One of my answers had 3 cases.

Does anyone know could I possibly pass or should I not have my hopes up?

You'll be ok
The reports only list 3-6 per cases usually. It's not a memory lesson on case names. Once you understand the core principles you'll be grand (though reports are scathing on those who dont.... like we've the PhD)

Paleblood

Paleblood wrote: »

Who was the guy down the back leaving for a piss every half hour?

MOD
Pls don't discuss other candidates. Have deleted second sentence of your post for obvious reasons

No problem. It was tongue in cheek, but yeah, I understand.

Paleblood

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

You'll be ok
The reports only list 3-6 per cases usually. It's not a memory lesson on case names. Once you understand the core principles you'll be grand (though reports are scathing on those who dont.... like we've the PhD)

The reports don't tell you an awful lot. They'll frequently say certain candidates done X or Y. But so what, did they get heavily penalised for it, did they pick up any marks for, etc.?

Paleblood

shellbm wrote: »

Has anyone ever passed contract with a severe lack of case law?? My question on implied terms dicussed the officious bystander, buisness efficacy, customary practice and then implied terms as a matter of law and then the Upmost Good Faith implied term... I had a total of 4 cases for the entire answer.

One of my answers had 3 cases.

Does anyone know could I possibly pass or should I not have my hopes up?

I assume that was 4(B)? I hit a wall with that and just froze.

The same with 3(B)? What exactly was that about? Some element of discharge? It was the line about deposit/instalment that threw me completely.

smeal

Paleblood wrote: »

I assume that was 4(B)? I hit a wall with that and just froze.

The same with 3(B)? What exactly was that about? Some element of discharge? It was the line about deposit/instalment that threw me completely.

Yeah 3B threw me too. I started on about repudiatory breach and I think I threw in a bit of the Acts in respect of Section 50 or something haha.

Didn't attempt 4 because I sorrrrt of knew what was happening in the first part but couldn't make out what the second part was and knew that the whole question couldn't be simply surrounding Spice Girls v Aprillia haha

I agree her questions are often very hard to decipher.

Essay questions were lovely though. Here's hoping I scraped a pass (FOURTH time lucky)

Paleblood

Another problem of mine is not remember the name of both parties in a case, or even worse, remembering none of the names and referring to it as 'insert whatever' case? How significant is that. I'd like to think I'll get some benefit from at least knowing about and trying to apply the case, but it looks terrible on the page.

Legal23

Paleblood wrote: »

Another problems of mine is not remember the name of both parties in a case, or even worse, remembering none of the names and referring to it as 'insert whatever' case? How significant is that. I'd like to think I'll get some benefit from at least knowing about and trying to apply the case, but it looks terrible on the page.

I'm the exact same. I completely bottled it yesterday on my first ever sitting, froze nerves got the better of me. So much so that I went in today answer 2 questions and left. I feel completely deflated. Annoying part is I knew it once I walked out. Sitting here trying to go over equity for tomorrow and I have such a mental block!! Can't remember anything, I have spent months rewriting notes and it just seems like it was all for nothing.. ðŸ™

BASHBAG

Paleblood wrote: »

Another problem of mine is not remember the name of both parties in a case, or even worse, remembering none of the names and referring to it as 'insert whatever' case? How significant is that. I'd like to think I'll get some benefit from at least knowing about and trying to apply the case, but it looks terrible on the page.

One of the prep course lecturers I had last year, (I won't say which one) explained that the bulk of the marks are going for the principles or ratio which resulted from the case and how they relate to the question asked. That's not to say that you won't lose some marks, but apparently it's minimal especially if you give some indication that you know the facts so it's clear you studied it. Examiner will most likely give you the benefit of the doubt, or at least that's what I've been told.

tiddy_boo

Hey guys, if anyone has March's equity paper and could send it on to me I would really appreciate it!

Thanks!

Lumi77

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

I think Undue skipped the last one. Maybe give it a look

Undue influence was in March on the paper

Paleblood

smeal wrote: »

Yeah 3B threw me too. I started on about repudiatory breach and I think I threw in a bit of the Acts in respect of Section 50 or something haha.

Didn't attempt 4 because I sorrrrt of knew what was happening in the first part but couldn't make out what the second part was and knew that the whole question couldn't be simply surrounding Spice Girls v Aprillia haha

I agree her questions are often very hard to decipher.

Essay questions were lovely though. Here's hoping I scraped a pass (FOURTH time lucky)

Fourth time? Jesus that's after terrifying me. Have you passed many others? What grades did you get in the other three Contract attempts? This is my first sitting so if I don't pass three I'll just have to learn from it and have another go, but I don't know if I'd have the stomach to keep going chasing the same subjects. No offence to you in particular, but at what point would you just admit defeat?

Paleblood

This is definitely premature, but when are the results out?

Robbo

Paleblood wrote: »

This is definitely premature, but when are the results out?

6 Weeks from the last exam is the usual timeframe, I believe.