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

nimcdona

For the La Moselle principles in restriction proceedings re the first test and Re Tralee Beef and Lamb and Mitek Holdings etc is anyone able to explain the decision with regards to whether the test was amplified with common law principles too? My notes aren't really clear what the end result was, thanks!

Murphs122

Are you able to drop in Legislation the morning of in Cork?

JCormac

TORT - Negligent Misstatement

Am I right in thinking that the chapter on Pure Economic Loss isn't essential to learn if you're planning on doing a question on Negligent Misstatement?

Legaleagle37

How did equity go? What came up!

CiaranS93

Legaleagle37 wrote: »

How did equity go? What came up!

Estoppel/unconscionable
UI with focus on independent legal advice in Ireland and compare to other jurisdictions
Mareva or Antoin Piller
Charitable - problem
Trustees duties - problem
Secret/resulting - problem
Notes - unincorporated associations, purpose trust for non charitable purpose and can't remember the other one
Constructive trust

Jenosul

If I spoke about proprietary estoppel have I failed the question can someone please tell me?

CiaranS93

Jenosul wrote: »

If I spoke about proprietary estoppel have I failed the question can someone please tell me?

She's a pretty tough marker.. wouldn't worry too much just focus on the next one there's nothing you can do now and no point in worrying about something you can't change

iamanengine

Jenosul wrote: »

If I spoke about proprietary estoppel have I failed the question can someone please tell me?

For Q8? That question was about proprietary estoppel though, no?

EmmaO94

Equity

Answer me honestly....

3 really solid answers, but could only answer one element of the note q, and was very iffy about the second half of q4 (wrote plenty on half secret trusts but the second half of question was out of my reach)

Would this be enough to scrape a pass?

LawStudent1234

iamanengine wrote: »

For Q8? That question was about proprietary estoppel though, no?

The Taylors Fashion case is on proprietary estoppel so you’re right

CiaranS93

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Equity

Answer me honestly....

3 really solid answers, but could only answer one element of the note q, and was very iffy about the second half of q4 (wrote plenty on half secret trusts but the second half of question was out of my reach)

Would this be enough to scrape a pass?

My sister did it last year and she said that was the only exam she came out of thinking she did really really well.. she got 51. I'm in the same boat as you with three solid answers and two dodgy ones

lawstudentirl

iamanengine wrote: »

For Q8? That question was about proprietary estoppel though, no?

Yeah it was on proprietary estoppel? That’s what I wrote on anyway. With a focus on unconscionability.

CiaranS93

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

The Taylors Fashion case is on proprietary estoppel so you’re right

Well based on the unconscionable element. I used McMahon v Kerry co co, cobbe, Naylor and maher

iamanengine

Yeah for sure, that's grand so.

Only thing I messed up on was the UI question, referred to Fitzgerald as Roche and Roche as Fitzgerald

That shouldn't mess me up too bad though I think...

Hopefully that is 2 for 2. 3 left let's goooooo

EmmaO94

CiaranS93 wrote: »

My sister did it last year and she said that was the only exam she came out of thinking she did really really well.. she got 51. I'm in the same boat as you with three solid answers and two dodgy ones

Yeah in another topic I'd be more (tentatively) hopeful but knowing the pass rate for Equity...

iamanengine

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Well based on the unconscionable element. I used McMahon v Kerry co co, cobbe, Naylor and maher

Oh no, just copping I don't think I had any Irish cases...disaster

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Oh no, just copping I don't think I had any Irish cases...disaster

Haha I'm sure it will be grand! I couldn't remember the names of them or facts and just kind wrote what I remembered so I doubt I'll gain much marks there haha

channing90

Equity
Answered 5 questions with correct info but forgot to mention a few big cases and wrote less then I have for other exams, did write less for equity ?

CiaranS93

channing90 wrote: »

Equity
Answered 5 questions with correct info but forgot to mention a few big cases and wrote less then I have for other exams, did write less for equity ?

Tbh man Equity is really hard to call in relation to what's right and what's wrong

EAL2019

CiaranS93 wrote: »

My sister did it last year and she said that was the only exam she came out of thinking she did really really well.. she got 51. I'm in the same boat as you with three solid answers and two dodgy ones

I was the same last sitting, did three solid Qs, one dodgy problem question and then for one half of the note it was a topic I hadn't even studied and had just looked over my friend's notes right before the exam (so a third of a page and probably one case).



It turned out to be my best subject with 63, everything else (including ones Ive thought went really well) Ive gotten low to mid 50s.



So you just don't know with these things, there's no point in dwelling on it until results are out!

CiaranS93

EAL2019 wrote: »

I was the same last sitting, did three solid Qs, one dodgy problem question and then for one half of the note it was a topic I hadn't even studied and had just looked over my friend's notes right before the exam (so a third of a page and probably one case).



It turned out to be my best subject with 63, everything else (including ones Ive thought went really well) Ive gotten low to mid 50s.



So you just don't know with these things, there's no point in dwelling on it until results are out!

That makes me feel a bit better thanks haha

CiaranS93

What's peoples thoughts/predictions for EU?

iamanengine

Ok, so how the hell am I supposed to study for Company now?!

I'm sooo sleep deprived

LawStudent1234

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Well based on the unconscionable element. I used McMahon v Kerry co co, cobbe, Naylor and maher

Ya that’s perfect

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Ok, so how the hell am I supposed to study for Company now?!

I'm sooo sleep deprived

Coffee, lots and lots of coffee.

ihatethesea

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Yeah in another topic I'd be more (tentatively) hopeful but knowing the pass rate for Equity...

I think I had the same last year, 3 good questions and two quite bad only half knew them and I passed so defo possible

tommyq94

Does any kind soul have any revision guides for Contract they would be willing to share, or have any predictions?

CiaranS93

tommyq94 wrote: »

Does any kind soul have any revision guides for Contract they would be willing to share, or have any predictions?

Subscribe to City Colleges and download the night before notes

leavingcert17

Did anyone mention three certainties in charitable trust problems

I spoke about charitable trusts but then brought in parts of three certainties

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Coffee, lots and lots of coffee.

Coffee is is then!

Jenosul

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

The Taylors Fashion case is on proprietary estoppel so you’re right

No sorry it was the proprietary I wrote on is that a fail? Thank you for reply

LawStudent1234

Jenosul wrote: »

No sorry it was the proprietary I wrote on is that a fail? Thank you for reply

If you wrote on proprietary estoppel you are correct

godfather2

Jenosul wrote: »

No sorry it was the proprietary I wrote on is that a fail? Thank you for reply

You never know with equity. Put it behind you and get ready for the next exam. I've known people who came out convinced they passed it only to be disappointed. The reverse has also proven to be true on more than one occassion. Chin up and soldier on it's not over yet.

LawStudent1234

godfather2 wrote: »

You never know with equity. Put it behind you and get ready for the next exam. I've known people who came out convinced they passed it only to be disappointed. The reverse has also proven to be true on more than one occassion. Chin up and soldier on it's not over yet.

She wrote the correct topic..

rightytighty

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Did anyone mention three certainties in charitable trust problems

I spoke about charitable trusts but then brought in parts of three certainties

I did on the same on the October paper anyway if it’s any comfort

iamanengine

Promissory - Usually comes up in Contract
Proprietary - Usually comes up in Equity

The question was on proprietary

Also do people think I will lose much marks for only referring to English cases on that Q? Question said to make reference to the jurisprudence of Irish courts and where appropriate to the jurisprudence of courts of other jurisdictions. I only had 1 Irish case in my notes but forgot it

leavingcert17

rightytighty wrote: »

I did on the same on the October paper anyway if it’s any comfort

Did you pass the question?

channing90

Equity charitable trusts
How did people answer the charitable trust question ? I said the first one was releave of poverty and then the second one could fail due to the club being exclusive but then that the donation to the poor children could be the advancement of education or it could be of sufficient public benefit but wasn’t sure what would happen, mentioned coughlan case on golf courses

CiaranS93

channing90 wrote: »

Equity charitable trusts
How did people answer the charitable trust question ? I said the first one was releave of poverty and then the second one could fail due to the club being exclusive but then that the donation to the poor children could be the advancement of education or it could be of sufficient public benefit but wasn’t sure what would happen, mentioned coughlan case on golf courses

Exact same.

Used National Tourism v Scotland and National Tourism v Colgan.

All fail except last one if they can show it involves some form of education/teaching/knowledge as per Re Shaw

And under section 2 has to be of public benefit

Jeremiah25

channing90 wrote: »

Equity charitable trusts
How did people answer the charitable trust question ? I said the first one was releave of poverty and then the second one could fail due to the club being exclusive but then that the donation to the poor children could be the advancement of education or it could be of sufficient public benefit but wasn’t sure what would happen, mentioned coughlan case on golf courses

Yeah I went with something along the same. First one for the relief of poverty and second one for the benefit of the commuity. Think Coughlan would be the main case there regarding the limitation placed on the trust.

CiaranS93

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Exact same.

Used National Tourism v Scotland and National Tourism v Colgan.

All fail except last one if they can show it involves some form of education/teaching/knowledge as per Re Shaw

And under section 2 has to be of public benefit

And just realised I wrote Colgan and not Coughlan, oops

mydogwentroof

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Exact same.

Used National Tourism v Scotland and National Tourism v Colgan.

All fail except last one if they can show it involves some form of education/teaching/knowledge as per Re Shaw

And under section 2 has to be of public benefit

I said the last one would seek to be classified under S3(1)(d) talked about Coughlan and referred to s49 of the 1961 act re the 10%

mydogwentroof

Jenosul wrote: »

No sorry it was the proprietary I wrote on is that a fail? Thank you for reply

It just said estoppel - talked about all the proprietary cases and discussed Alan v El Nasr re promissory

ihatethesea

tommyq94 wrote: »

Does any kind soul have any revision guides for Contract they would be willing to share, or have any predictions?

I literally feel its so unpredictable after last year with no Offer, Acceptance or Cons. Protection! Expecting they will surely make a show for sure this year?!

mydogwentroof

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Equity

Answer me honestly....

3 really solid answers, but could only answer one element of the note q, and was very iffy about the second half of q4 (wrote plenty on half secret trusts but the second half of question was out of my reach)

Would this be enough to scrape a pass?

I failed last sitting in similar circumstances

CiaranS93

ihatethesea wrote: »

I literally feel its so unpredictable after last year with no Offer, Acceptance or Cons. Protection! Expecting they will surely make a show for sure this year?!

I was so underprepared in the last sitting.. Only had 2-3 solid questions and the rest was a load of BS. I still got 50 when I was sure I failed.

CiaranS93

mydogwentroof wrote: »

I said the last one would seek to be classified under S3(1)(d) talked about Coughlan and referred to s49 of the 1961 act re the 10%

Could you clarify how section 49 relates? I thought it was where there were two purposes present you get rid of the non charitable one?

mydogwentroof

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Could you clarify how section 49 relates? I thought it was where there were two purposes present you get rid of the non charitable one?

S49:


Where any of the purposes of a gift includes or could be deemed to include both charitable and non-charitable objects, its terms shall be so construed and given effect to as to exclude the non-charitable objects and the purpose shall, accordingly, be treated as charitable.

rightytighty

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Did you pass the question?

I did

ihatethesea

CiaranS93 wrote: »

I was so underprepared in the last sitting.. Only had 2-3 solid questions and the rest was a load of BS. I still got 50 when I was sure I failed.

Aw fair play!! I sat it last year too and was super unprepared too, Got 39 haha, feeling a lot more prepared this year but terrified shel shaft us again with a ****ty paper!