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

jewels652

iamanengine wrote: »

Just me or have all the papers so far been really tough/awkward? Constitutional had like 4 Qs on SOP, Company had 2 Qs that have possibly never come up before, Equity was just a generally tough paper I thought

Though it's possible people say this every sitting I guess

I got that feeling too. I think they are trying to punish us for all the changes introduced making it easier on us, like getting rid of the pass 3 rule. I don’t know it could be my imagination.

CiaranS93

Breacnua wrote: »

sign of the times with rule changes I think

You think the fact that you no longer have to pass 3 the first time that they are now making them slightly harder?

Hamerzan Sickles

godfather2 wrote: »

Anyone else absolutely shattered?

Yeah, I can't motivate myself to do anything for EU. The last three exams have had a severe impact on my sleep.

Breacnua

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Didn’t like it at all but managed 5 questions!!! Thought it was a horrible paper if I’m been honest!!!

any chance we could get details of questions that came up... curiosity would kill the cat

iamanengine

They should have kept the bloody 3 exam rule instead of making exams harder :mad:

(I only say this as someone who was lucky to pass 3 exams last sitting )

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

They should have kept the bloody 3 exam rule instead of making exams harder :mad:

(I only say this as someone who was lucky to pass 3 exams last sitting )

Yea I think it's pretty unfair on those who had to put in a serious grind to pass the 3. But all we can do is speculate as we will never know if that's the case

bobbyness

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Didn’t like it at all but managed 5 questions!!! Thought it was a horrible paper if I’m been honest!!!

Amen. It's like the topics we expected came up, but just in such an obscure way with so many little details to remember

spygirl

I found the last sitting pretty tough tbh. New rule was not in then so maybe they are just getting harder as the numbers sitting them are increasing. I have found though that when a topic is relatively well answered it is given a back seat for a while in later exams. Have been focusing on past exam questions where the examiner says a topic was answered poorly in the past.

Not much of a strategy but hoping it works. Some of those questions on contract today were tricky enough. Yet some repeated questions which were previously criticized by the examiner.

ahhhhhFE1s

Breacnua wrote: »

can anyone enlighten us what came up on contract today?

i still have nightmares about that subject from last sitting :-O

Just my guess so who knows really..
Q1- Formal statutory requirements eg Statute of Frauds and would have said agreements to agree- some recent case law Morris v Swanton?- PQ
Q2- Frustration and something else- cancellation of contract with no deposit and no performance wants to sue for breach??- PQ
Q3- Damages- remoteness, heads of damages inc emotional distress and duty to mitigate-PQ
Q4- Consideration mostly - performance of already existing contractual duty and rule in pinnel case- similar facts to Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls- then duress was mentioned and couldn't figure Maire part- wanted to sue contractor for breach but there was a subcontractor maybe privity?- PQ
Q5-entitled to treat itself discharged as a result of breach- E
Q6- statutory limitations on exclusion clauses- E
Q7- Ref to irish law, penalty clauses- E
Q8 A- common mistake OR B promissory estoppel- E

If anyone has any insight would be interested??

Breacnua

spygirl wrote: »

I found the last sitting pretty tough tbh. New rule was not in then so maybe they are just getting harder as the numbers sitting them are increasing. I have found though that when a topic is relatively well answered it is given a back seat for a while in later exams. Have been focusing on past exam questions where the examiner says a topic was answered poorly in the past.

Not much of a strategy but hoping it works. Some of those questions on contract today were tricky enough. Yet some repeated questions which were previously criticized by the examiner.

I agree, if a Q is badly answered it is more likely to appear fairly soon.

EmmaO94

Damn Q1 completely threw me, went off in the totally wrong direction by the looks of things.

But four other (hopefully) solid answers should mitigate the loss (get it?)

TheLawGuy

CiaranS93 wrote: »

I've thought they've been tougher than the last sitting although I did the 4 easiest last sitting and passed then all, literally got 50 in 3/4 haha

I though constitutional was pretty tough as of all the SOP questions. Found myself sometimes repeating myself.

Hopefully EU is kind to us

Which 4 did you do last sitting out of curiosity?
Tort Property Criminal Contract?

bobbyness

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Damn Q1 completely threw me, went off in the totally wrong direction by the looks of things.

But four other (hopefully) solid answers should mitigate the loss (get it?)

Not necessarily. I mean I included statute of frauds and part performance (did she instruct solicitors already - Or incur cost). But I also discussed if there was offer, acceptance and consideration.

If it's a well rounded answer with relevant cases, albeit slightly in the wrong direction, I would hope the examiner would still give at least some marks! Right?!?

CiaranS93

TheLawGuy wrote: »

Which 4 did you do last sitting out of curiosity?
Tort Property Criminal Contract?

Property, Company, Criminal and Contract

For anyone worried about contract, I honestly left that exam having done 3 average questions and 2 poor questions and I passed. Although the fact there was no offer acceptance or consideration might have played a part

EAL2019

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Property, Company, Criminal and Contract

For anyone worried about contract, I honestly left that exam having done 3 average questions and 2 poor questions and I passed. Although the fact there was no offer acceptance or consideration might have played a part

I might be (probably am!) but I actually don’t think offer and acceptance featured on this paper either? At least as a major component to any question

spygirl

EAL2019 wrote: »

I might be (probably am!) but I actually don’t think offer and acceptance featured on this paper either? At least as a major component to any question

I would have to agree with you there, I know many were expecting them as they didn't appear in the last paper. So if you are wrong. . . .you are not the only one. Exams getting a lot less predictable. Finding missing from Property last Oct some people nearly lost their reason. Some of the more classic topics taking a back seat in these exams. i heard Company threw some spanners for people yesterday.
Dreading Tort.:(

CiaranS93

EAL2019 wrote: »

I might be (probably am!) but I actually don’t think offer and acceptance featured on this paper either? At least as a major component to any question

I think if I ever got bell curved it was contract in the last sitting. I had started studying for it again before the results were out that's how sure I was that I failed. I wouldn't worry about it anyways

BlackhallPlz

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Property, Company, Criminal and Contract

For anyone worried about contract, I honestly left that exam having done 3 average questions and 2 poor questions and I passed. Although the fact there was no offer acceptance or consideration might have played a part

I second this. 50 on the nose last sitting with the same 3 average and 2 made up qs.

EmmaO94

bobbyness wrote: »

Not necessarily. I mean I included statute of frauds and part performance (did she instruct solicitors already - Or incur cost). But I also discussed if there was offer, acceptance and consideration.

If it's a well rounded answer with relevant cases, albeit slightly in the wrong direction, I would hope the examiner would still give at least some marks! Right?!?

Ah god I don't know. I did Q1 as a panicked final question and in my haste went down the offer/acceptance/revocation/postal rule route. Ironically I even thought about formal requirements for land etc but didn't want to put it into my answer as I thought it'd make it seemed very jumbled... oh dear!!

spygirl

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Ah god I don't know. I did Q1 as a panicked final question and in my haste went down the offer/acceptance/revocation/postal rule route. Ironically I even thought about formal requirements for land etc but didn't want to put it into my answer as I thought it'd make it seemed very jumbled... oh dear!!

I glazed over the formal requirements, Statute of Frauds act just got a mention.said he couldn't revoke, valid agreement as supported by consideration even though not paid over yet. Said he might claim they were still in negotiations and merely had an agreement to agree. Mentioned specific performance as remedy and said why Proprietary estoppel was not available. Complete and utter panic mode. It was the only problem question I did and like you, did it at the very end. Think I was hoping inspiration would have come for the final question.

nmurphy1441

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Just my guess so who knows really..
Q1- Formal statutory requirements eg Statute of Frauds and would have said agreements to agree- some recent case law Morris v Swanton?- PQ
Q2- Frustration and something else- cancellation of contract with no deposit and no performance wants to sue for breach??- PQ
Q3- Damages- remoteness, heads of damages inc emotional distress and duty to mitigate-PQ
Q4- Consideration mostly - performance of already existing contractual duty and rule in pinnel case- similar facts to Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls- then duress was mentioned and couldn't figure Maire part- wanted to sue contractor for breach but there was a subcontractor maybe privity?- PQ
Q5-entitled to treat itself discharged as a result of breach- E
Q6- statutory limitations on exclusion clauses- E
Q7- Ref to irish law, penalty clauses- E
Q8 A- common mistake OR B promissory estoppel- E

If anyone has any insight would be interested??

For the second part of Q4, I talked about breach of condition of a contract and that Charles could be sued for damages and the contract could be terminated. Mentioned the Dundalk shopping centre v roof spray case!

CarrigView

Did repudiation come up twice for contract.. ? Found myself using the same cases for two different questions and was a bit hesitant..

Could anyone tell me when/how results are available?

Sineaddh

bobbyness wrote: »

Not necessarily. I mean I included statute of frauds and part performance (did she instruct solicitors already - Or incur cost). But I also discussed if there was offer, acceptance and consideration.

If it's a well rounded answer with relevant cases, albeit slightly in the wrong direction, I would hope the examiner would still give at least some marks! Right?!?

Oh Jesus I did offer band acceptance with consideration forQ1! Damnitttt

Sineaddh

What are stat limitations on exclusion clauses? I wrote all on exclusion clauses then panicked and say statutory and threw in a last minute paragraph on SOG!

Felt ok and now the more I look back the more of a mess that paper seems ;(

iamanengine

Finding it v v v difficult to study for EU

ahhhhhFE1s

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

For the second part of Q4, I talked about breach of condition of a contract and that Charles could be sued for damages and the contract could be terminated. Mentioned the Dundalk shopping centre v roof spray case!

Yes I threw in a few things about damages as well was just wondering had I missed something obvious about it being the sub contractor fault but she wanted to sue the other lad who she also had a contract with.. Ah sure probably overthinking it!

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

Finding it v v v difficult to study for EU

Seems like we are doing almost identical subjects. I am only motivating myself to start looking at it right now. Keep in mind this is the last one - one last push and you might never have to sit these again! In two days it will all be over.

As you are solely responsible for what I've studied for my other subjects this time around, we might as well go four for four -- what topics are you banking on coming up this time?

Edit: I thought Company went alright yesterday.

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Seems like we are doing almost identical subjects. I am only motivating myself to start looking at it right now. Keep in mind this is the last one - one last push and you might never have to sit these again! In two days it will all be over.

As you are solely responsible for what I've studied for my other subjects this time around, we might as well go four for four -- what topics are you banking on coming up this time?

Edit: I thought Company went alright yesterday.

I have Tort on Monday as well

Might as well! I'm covering:

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
FMOG
FMOW
Equality

All are pretty much bankers except Sources and Equality. I'm not doing Competition which is a banker so trying to offset that a little bit by picking up sources and equality, think either of them are due a run

Company was manageable, despite my sleep deprived state

milktray22

i thought she only had a contract with bob, not with charles??

milktray22

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Yes I threw in a few things about damages as well was just wondering had I missed something obvious about it being the sub contractor fault but she wanted to sue the other lad who she also had a contract with.. Ah sure probably overthinking it!

I thought she only had a contract with bob, not with charles

ahhhhhFE1s

milktray22 wrote: »

I thought she only had a contract with bob, not with charles

Just realised I mixed the two of them up and advised Bob instead.. Would I be massively penalised for that??

She had original penalty clause contract with bob and wanted to sue charles for breach of contract due to leaky pipes

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

I have Tort on Monday as well

Might as well! I'm covering:

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
FMOG
FMOW
Equality

All are pretty much bankers except Sources and Equality. I'm not doing Competition which is a banker so trying to offset that a little bit by picking up sources and equality, think either of them are due a run

Company was manageable, despite my sleep deprived state

Ah that's very intense, you'll make it through though! Were you doing 5 this sitting? I can email you some essays for tort I wrote up for some recurrent essay titles when I was sitting it in October if you think they might be of use to you.

Good stuff, thanks for that. Time to begin cramming. I might try to bring in competition law because I can still remember a lot of it from when I studied it in college.

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

I have Tort on Monday as well

Might as well! I'm covering:

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
FMOG
FMOW
Equality

All are pretty much bankers except Sources and Equality. I'm not doing Competition which is a banker so trying to offset that a little bit by picking up sources and equality, think either of them are due a run

Company was manageable, despite my sleep deprived state

I'm doing the same except without sources and will have a very brief knowledge on equality just in case I need an emergency final question

OMGWACA

jewels652 wrote: »

Sorry for butting in

John Mee is a lecturer in ucc. He has written so many academic articles on property. Oh the memories of doing property as an undergrad, life was way easier back then
happy days

Thanks so much!

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Ah that's very intense, you'll make it through though! Were you doing 5 this sitting? I can email you some essays for tort I wrote up for some recurrent essay titles when I was sitting it in October if you think they might be of use to you.

Good stuff, thanks for that. Time to begin cramming. I might try to bring in competition law because I can still remember a lot of it from when I studied it in college.

It's all good my notes are in decent shape for tort having done it last sitting, thanks though. Yeah I went for 5 this sitting, passed 3 last sitting so went for the glory this time! I'm supposed to be going to Blackhall in October so hopefully I can pull it off...

CiaranS93 wrote: »

I'm doing the same except without sources and will have a very brief knowledge on equality just in case I need an emergency final question

I think with those topics we should definitely get 5 Qs and possibly 6

OMGWACA

I know people are freaking out but I've been half arsed doing these exams and in my experience it's so much easier to pass a really difficult exam than it is to pass a nicer paper so keep the faith!

**says the person who 100% failed company yesterday

bobbyness

OMGWACA wrote: »

I know people are freaking out but I've been half arsed doing these exams and in my experience it's so much easier to pass a really difficult exam than it is to pass a nicer paper so keep the faith!

**says the person who 100% failed company yesterday

You passed company. Keep the faith

LJones18

PROPERTY

Hi, Just wondering if anyone could help me with this Adverse Possession question; Would this be adverse as Fran has given Charles permission to keep an eye on the land etc?
And what would be important to mention here?

QUESTION TWO

ln 1988, Fran inherited a small cottage from her uncle. She visited the property on e couple
of occasions but decided that she did not wish to live there as it was much too quiet and
isolated and her job and friends were located in the city. Nonetheless, she decided to keep
the house as somewhere to go for a break at weekends, a holiday home in the summer and
ultimately a retirement home. She asked the neighbour next door - Charles - to 'keep an
eye' on thé cottage for her and gave him a spare key in the event that an emergency arose.
However, work became very busy for Fran that year, the result of which was that she never
had the chance to stay in the cottage. A couple of years later, Charles began using the shed
at the rear of the cottage to store his bicycle and his garden tools. ln 1994, he decided to
carry out some repairs on the shed as well as the grounds which had become quite
dilapidated and in a state of disrepair. This work, which included a new gate and padlock (for
which he had the only key) cost him €500. Since Fran had not been in contact with Gharles,
he never told her about this. A year later, Charles started to use the house to accommodate
friends who came to visit. He also started to rent it out during the summer months and kept
the money for himself. ln 2013, Charles sold his land to Jack and handed over the keys to
Fran's house. He informed Jack that Fran had not been around for years. Jack continued to
use Fran's property as if it was his own. ln early 2018, Fran returned to her cottage and
demanded her keys back.

Advise Jack.

CiaranS93

LJones18 wrote: »

PROPERTY

Hi, Just wondering if anyone could help me with this Adverse Possession question; Would this be adverse as Fran has given Charles permission to keep an eye on the land etc?
And what would be important to mention here?

QUESTION TWO

ln 1988, Fran inherited a small cottage from her uncle. She visited the property on e couple
of occasions but decided that she did not wish to live there as it was much too quiet and
isolated and her job and friends were located in the city. Nonetheless, she decided to keep
the house as somewhere to go for a break at weekends, a holiday home in the summer and
ultimately a retirement home. She asked the neighbour next door - Charles - to 'keep an
eye' on thé cottage for her and gave him a spare key in the event that an emergency arose.
However, work became very busy for Fran that year, the result of which was that she never
had the chance to stay in the cottage. A couple of years later, Charles began using the shed
at the rear of the cottage to store his bicycle and his garden tools. ln 1994, he decided to
carry out some repairs on the shed as well as the grounds which had become quite
dilapidated and in a state of disrepair. This work, which included a new gate and padlock (for
which he had the only key) cost him €500. Since Fran had not been in contact with Gharles,
he never told her about this. A year later, Charles started to use the house to accommodate
friends who came to visit. He also started to rent it out during the summer months and kept
the money for himself. ln 2013, Charles sold his land to Jack and handed over the keys to
Fran's house. He informed Jack that Fran had not been around for years. Jack continued to
use Fran's property as if it was his own. ln early 2018, Fran returned to her cottage and
demanded her keys back.

Advise Jack.

Depends when the time starts running. I would say when he establishes requisite animus possendi the clock would start so when he changed th locks etc. For these questions I always think you are better to give reasons for why it could be and why it could not be AP. There's a case very similar but can't think of the name off the top of my head. The fact he has her permission is also a factor.

Edit: I think the facts in this are similar to a few cases actually

bobbyness

OMGWACA wrote: »

I know people are freaking out but I've been half arsed doing these exams and in my experience it's so much easier to pass a really difficult exam than it is to pass a nicer paper so keep the faith!

**says the person who 100% failed company yesterday

bobbyness wrote: »

You passed company. Keep the faith

Coming from a guy who 100% failed contract today! :P

LJones18

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Depends when the time starts running. I would say when he establishes requisite animus possendi the clock would start so when he changed th locks etc. For these questions I always think you are better to give reasons for why it could be and why it could not be AP. There's a case very similar but can't think of the name off the top of my head. The fact he has her permission is also a factor.

Edit: I think the facts in this are similar to a few cases actually

Thanks!

Yeah i'm wondering though does it count as permission as he has gone beyond what he was given permission to do? Stating both sides is probably a good idea!

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

I have Tort on Monday as well

Might as well! I'm covering:

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
FMOG
FMOW
Equality

All are pretty much bankers except Sources and Equality. I'm not doing Competition which is a banker so trying to offset that a little bit by picking up sources and equality, think either of them are due a run

Company was manageable, despite my sleep deprived state

How often does MS liability come up with DE?

Don't really want to cover it as have nothing done on it..

Jeremiah25

Infringement procedure worth covering for EU or nah?

iamanengine

CiaranS93 wrote: »

How often does MS liability come up with DE?

Don't really want to cover it as have nothing done on it..

My grid tells me they have come up together in every sitting with this examiner, except for the last sitting where DE didn't come up and MS Liability came up on its own.

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Infringement procedure worth covering for EU or nah?

Nah

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

My grid tells me they have come up together in every sitting with this examiner, except for the last sitting where DE didn't come up and MS Liability came up on its own.



Nah

Guess I'll have a read so

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

My grid tells me they have come up together in every sitting with this examiner, except for the last sitting where DE didn't come up and MS Liability came up on its own.



Nah

Anyone has any typed notes on MS liability would be really appreciated

iamanengine

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Anyone has any typed notes on MS liability would be really appreciated

PM me your email

channing90

iamanengine wrote: »

My grid tells me they have come up together in every sitting with this examiner, except for the last sitting where DE didn't come up and MS Liability came up on its own.


Was Direct effect not q4 last sitting ?

iamanengine

channing90 wrote: »

Was Direct effect not q4 last sitting ?

Grid says Q4 was MS Liability, no DE, although they will always be connected. MS liability is where a MS has failed to properly implement something that has DE and as a result they are liable for damages

I would warn that I'm purely going off this grid I have, I haven't looked at exam papers so I can't confirm

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Grid says Q4 was MS Liability, no DE, although they will always be connected. MS liability is where a MS has failed to properly implement something that has DE and as a result they are liable for damages

I would warn that I'm purely going off this grid I have, I haven't looked at exam papers so I can't confirm

Last sitting MS liability was question 2.

See attached