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

RandolphEsq · 20-03-2013 5:17pm #1

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

mackerf · 20-03-2013 5:55pm

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

What are examiners likes/ dislikes in general? Are questions often mixed topics?

chops018 · 20-03-2013 5:59pm

Good luck to those doing Equity tomorrow. EU was horrible today.

RandolphEsq · 20-03-2013 6:30pm

mackerf wrote: »

What are examiners likes/ dislikes in general? Are questions often mixed topics?

No idea what the examiner likes but I assume minimal waffling. Topics don't seem to overlap.

ShamblesB · 20-03-2013 6:43pm

has there ever been a whole question on anton pillar orders before? Theres not all that much to them

ShamblesB · 20-03-2013 6:45pm

is it safe to say we can leave qt injuncs out considering they came up in the last sitting?

RandolphEsq · 20-03-2013 7:09pm

ShamblesB wrote: »

is it safe to say we can leave qt injuncs out considering they came up in the last sitting?

I will be anyway. Hopefully Marevas and Anton Piller turn up as 2 of the parts to a 3 part question. Campus Oil principles as an essay is my hope for injunctions. I haven't looked at past-papers, except Oct 2012, as I sat it, so don't know how injunctions are usually asked. I did have the examiner as a lecturer though. My own feeling would be that they won't come up as a problem question.

ShamblesB · 20-03-2013 8:05pm

yeah an essay on campus oil and where it doesnt apply would be good! Good luck to everyone 2mro, lets hope it goes better than eu today!

UberStressed · 20-03-2013 9:17pm

Good luck tomorow everyone.... Please let this be my last ever FE1 ... Hoping for nice questions on charitable trusts, trusteeship, tracing, joint accounts, rectification and donatia Mortis Causa ... Is it too much to ask?

TheGreaterFool · 20-03-2013 9:21pm

Cutting extensively here. Is Unconscionable Bargains/Improvident Transactions regularly asked (or at all) or is it safe to focus in on Undue Influence and the third party/guarantee aspect?

RandolphEsq · 20-03-2013 9:47pm

The maxims were tipped in October and didn't show, I'm seriously hoping for a full 20 mark q on them but 10 will do!

doing · 20-03-2013 11:07pm

Has the Charities Act been commenced yet? Apart from the 4 or 5 provisions Eamon o Cuiv commenced in 2009 that is?

RandolphEsq · 21-03-2013 8:16am

Come equity, let us dance.

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 1:39pm

finally a nice paper!

RandolphEsq · 21-03-2013 1:51pm

Yeah, happy with that but worried it will be marked hard since it was so easy.

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 2:48pm

hopefully not! Well I gave it my best attempt yet, just hope contract goes well tomorrow and with any luck i passed either eu or company or else have to resit them all!

what a silly rule!

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 4:12pm

contracts with minors are voidable, unless for necessaries or beneficial services. Does this mean that the minor can enforce it against the other party but not the other way around or just that they can't be enforced at all unless for the above exceptions???

Gibbonw2 · 21-03-2013 4:43pm

What were the 4 essay contract qs last year anyone, please?

The212 · 21-03-2013 4:51pm

hope study going well for everyone.

RE Contract tomorrow I am covering

offer and offer Termination
acceptance
consideration
terms
privity
intention
capacity
mistake
misrep
undue Inf
damages
frustration
clauses

thoughts?

what is everyone zoning in on?

Gibbonw2 · 21-03-2013 4:55pm

Good question re minors but its not really dealt with on most curriculum. I wouldnt waste time with it but courts are usually deferential to minors and adults are for the most part not allowed avoid a contract without either agreement, termination, breach or frustration. So just think of it as a valid contract with the child capable of avoiding it most circumstances with exceptions (necessities, beneficial contracts for services/apprenticeships and possibly periodic payments)

Gibbonw2 · 21-03-2013 5:14pm

Now can you answer my question!!

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 5:14pm

last year was privity, exemption clauses or eu directives, common mistake and implied terms.

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 5:18pm

The212 wrote: »

hope study going well for everyone.

RE Contract tomorrow I am covering

offer and offer Termination
acceptance
consideration
terms
privity
intention
capacity
mistake
misrep
undue Inf
damages
frustration
clauses

thoughts?

what is everyone zoning in on?

that should be fine! Is it not the whole course? Im leaving out damages and terms, well i know a bit but nothing major and don't have enough time now! Oh i'm not doing the eu bit either, hate the eu after that paper on wed!

guys could someone please tell me the distiction between common mistake and unilateral? Is common mistake bell v lever bros etc and unilateral the sort where the price is misstated etc?

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 5:20pm

ive a funny feeling we will get a problem q on frustration, it didn't come up at all in the last paper!

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 5:25pm

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Now can you answer my question!!

lol! Do you have to give an answer to get one now!

The212 · 21-03-2013 5:28pm

thanks for reply ShamblesB! not going near consumer protection! and also probably leave out illegality,void contracts and duress!

Common mistake - parties are making the same mistake ..Bell v lever Bros, Solle v Butcher

Unilateral - where one party makes the mistake and the other is aware (or should be aware) of this

ShamblesB · 21-03-2013 5:36pm

oh yeah, forgot about illegal and void contracts! I'd say what you have should be fine! Thanks for your help whatever way i've phrased my notes i've made it very confusing! Hopefully it's a nice paper!

sorchauna · 21-03-2013 5:48pm

Im amazed we are only on a second thread now. Equity was a good paper today I just didnt know enough in detail on certain topics but general stuff on everything!

Glinda! · 21-03-2013 9:04pm

Overwhelmed by contract

:(:(

chops018 · 21-03-2013 10:38pm

Glinda! wrote: »

Overwhelmed by contract :(:(

Good luck, and to everyone else doing Contract tomorrow!

bobsterlfc · 22-03-2013 8:54am

Folks

Any advice on which of the 3 Schools is best for the FE1 Preps (GCD, Indepedent or City). Looking at doing the October sittings.

Cheers

B

Robbo · 22-03-2013 11:03am

Morbid curiosity here but in the DMC question in Equity, is there some recent case on assisted suicide? I treated the beneficiaries input in the suicide as a "clean hands" issue since we were explicitly told to stay away from any Succession Act concerns.

ShamblesB · 22-03-2013 12:52pm

Guys what was question 6A about today???

ShamblesB · 22-03-2013 12:59pm

Robbo wrote: »

Morbid curiosity here but in the DMC question in Equity, is there some recent case on assisted suicide? I treated the beneficiaries input in the suicide as a "clean hands" issue since we were explicitly told to stay away from any Succession Act concerns.

I just said it would prob be void as a matter of public policy as assisting someone with suicide is unlawful. The clean hands thing sounds better!

doing · 22-03-2013 3:51pm

ShamblesB wrote: »

I just said it would prob be void as a matter of public policy as assisting someone with suicide is unlawful. The clean hands thing sounds better!

But it was Mary who killed Deirdre, not Jane, how would Jane be complicit (as far as criminal law goes) in the assisted suicide? I would have thought Wilkes v Allington (where the precedent was if you do a dmc in apprehension of death, but then die of something else), it's still valid, would cover that?

Since it was a straightforward DMC, I thought the issue was undue influence like Gregg v Kidd, or even Simpson v Simpson as the cancer drugs and pain medication could have addled her mind and she'd no independent legal advice?

When I did property DMC was covered in far more detail than in my Equity book. I can't remember the cases from property but I think there were cases on whether DMC was valid in the case of suicide? I wish I had them at hand yesterday, although I don't know if they fall under property law rather than equity?

KarlKarlson123 · 22-03-2013 4:52pm

I also thought that the manner of death was irrelevant for DMC to arise as per Wilkes v Allington. She had also been contemplating death anyway in a serious way ie terminally ill and was given a month to live - so this satisfied the requirement in Bentham v potterton? Could be wrong

ShamblesB · 22-03-2013 7:20pm

ShamblesB wrote: »

Guys what was question 6A about today???

Does anyone have an idea? I thought it was the exceptions to the parole evidence rule? For anyone who didn't sit the exam today but might have an idea, the question was...

"Outline the extent to which the courts take into account background information when interpreting contractual documents"

Please help if you can, my head is wrecked trying to figure it out and have an idea if I may have passed or not! All in all it wasn't a bad paper today though

ShamblesB · 22-03-2013 7:26pm

doing wrote: »

But it was Mary who killed Deirdre, not Jane, how would Jane be complicit (as far as criminal law goes) in the assisted suicide? I would have thought Wilkes v Allington (where the precedent was if you do a dmc in apprehension of death, but then die of something else), it's still valid, would cover that?

Since it was a straightforward DMC, I thought the issue was undue influence like Gregg v Kidd, or even Simpson v Simpson as the cancer drugs and pain medication could have addled her mind and she'd no independent legal advice?

When I did property DMC was covered in far more detail than in my Equity book. I can't remember the cases from property but I think there were cases on whether DMC was valid in the case of suicide? I wish I had them at hand yesterday, although I don't know if they fall under property law rather than equity?

KarlKarlson123 wrote: »

I also thought that the manner of death was irrelevant for DMC to arise as per Wilkes v Allington. She had also been contemplating death anyway in a serious way ie terminally ill and was given a month to live - so this satisfied the requirement in Bentham v potterton? Could be wrong

Well I completely mixed it up, I thought it was Jane who assisted her, so I said it would be void. In Agnew v Belfast Bank a DMC made before suicide was void but that was before it was decriminalised in 1993 so don't know about now... Also in Mills v Shields and Kelly I think it was stated obiter that a DMC would not be invalidated in such circumstances... Not 100% sure though...

Gibbonw2 · 22-03-2013 10:30pm

Ugh, just looked at eu paper again, first time i could bring myself to since that morning. Disgusting inexcusable paper! I answered the conferral of powers question ok (no caselaw and was a bit of a rote type answer), my judicial review answer was relatively ok also, luckily could answer 2 casenotes adequately (microsoft and test aschats) with a few sentences on zambrano. My next answer was q 6 (free movement) and again this was ok, but just ok. My planned application of answering was throw asunder by the obscurity of the questions and with regards part ii, you have 10 minutes to answer each scenario and it took me 3/4 minutes to read that question alone. Really hope he takes into consideration how unfair and obscure that paper was given the legitimate expectancy he has built up with the consistency of past papers. No direct effect, competition law, equality, state aid, an obscure free movement and 8 rather obscure case notes.

Gibbonw2 · 22-03-2013 10:40pm

Oh my 5th answer was the state participation one. In haste i answered this in reference to Altmark and SGEIs. It was an ok answer but not what he asked. Any chance i might get any marks for it in peoples opinion? Really dont know what he was trying to achieve by throwing such an unfair paper. I know the pass rate was high last year but is what he was doing effectively 'proving a point'. I was more confident going into this than any other exam and worked extremely hard but just know ill be hovering in the 45 % bracket at best!

ShamblesB · 23-03-2013 10:23am

What did u say about the effect of lisbon reform on judicial review? It was an awful paper, i felt like leaving when I saw it because no question was straight forward, a lot more difficult and convoluted than the past papers... I felt pretty confident going in too, but within the first 5 minutes that confidence disappeared! The only thing you can hope is that since everyone found it so difficult maybe he won't mark it so hard and you will get to the 50

ShamblesB · 23-03-2013 10:29am

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Oh my 5th answer was the state participation one. In haste i answered this in reference to Altmark and SGEIs. It was an ok answer but not what he asked. Any chance i might get any marks for it in peoples opinion? Really dont know what he was trying to achieve by throwing such an unfair paper. I know the pass rate was high last year but is what he was doing effectively 'proving a point'. I was more confident going into this than any other exam and worked extremely hard but just know ill be hovering in the 45 % bracket at best!

I'm not sure how much marks you will get for that but in the reports it always says "at best students can get low marks for a question not asked, depending on how relevant it is" so hopefully you will get some at least!

does anyone know how the European Parliaments legislative process differs to that of member states parliaments? I just completely waffled for that part...

Gibbonw2 · 23-03-2013 12:05pm

The post lisbon regulation aspect relates to the fact that the wording of the amendment will possibly lead to a greater leniency by the Ecj in allowing 'non privileged' and non adressed natural and legal persons to challenge eu law. I mentioned that regulations are nonetheless not defined in the treaties (except the rejected constitutional treaty) and that commentators have varied in their opinion whether or not the amendment will lead to a less strict approach to judicial review than that envisaged and relied on by courts post Plaumann.

Gibbonw2 · 23-03-2013 12:27pm

I can understand the need to knock a subject like direct effect out once in a while but to not compensate this by including other popular areas or not distorting the manner of asking questions is unfair and doesnt measure a students overall knowledge of the EU area. For example that conferral of powers question and its reference to the Polish parliament quote. Why decide, when the exam is missing already significantly consistently asked questions to alter the overall genesis of a question which has always been asked in the same format, more or less. I covered over 90% of the curriculum feeling leaving out aspects like brussels regulations, eu criminal law , movement of capital etc could be compensated. But no. He must really have had a grilling after passing 70 % of takers in october.

Fe1stresser · 23-03-2013 1:05pm

Hi,

Recent addition to this board. Had a rough run at the recent sitting as I attempted 8 but really only had 6 decent exams.

Just wondering if anyone shed any insight into how company is marked? Had 2 great questions, 1 ok and then 2 dismal ones... The last 2 ironically I had actually studied and knew well but within the time constraints and the fact that I answered them last they were very rough. So I'm worried- I answered 5 but....

Also as regards question 8 on the constitutional paper, did anyone else discuss the principle against non- delegation and the significance of " any power" being vested in the minister... I obviously discussed privacy but I thought that that was a large element of the question too..but then i met an acquaintance after the exam ( who is pretty brilliant by all accounts) and he hadn't even discussed it because he thought it was a red herring...

Also as regards the question on fair procedures...I discussed mallakev v mjelr and dellway investments v nama...

Finally re the separation of powers question...I wrote generally about the difficulties with it ( basing it broadly on parts of ECs new book- which is utterly brilliant to be honest) and then in the third paragraph tied it into the judgment in Pringle and the bits of the judgment I could remember about sovereignty...

By the way in the DMC question in equity, I think that the question or something similar appeared a few years ago and the examiner in the reports stated that the question should be approached in a manner analogous to Agnew...

I thought criminal was lovely but a little different to previous but not surprising considering the examiner has mentioned that students appear uncomfortable with certain parts too the course.

Also one final thing, I think tort is marked quite well...if you wrote anything of relevance it will be taken into account...

Any insight that anyone could provide would be welcomed. I'm pretty worried and don't know if I can face doing it all again in October!

Gibbonw2 · 23-03-2013 2:02pm

Attempting 8 at once is very risky. Its difficult enough getting those first 3 but limiting your time management for subjects, not having any breaks between exams and generally having thousands of caselaw muddled up to be applied on an early morning time frame of 3 hours is extremely hard. That doesnt even take into account stress and other external areas affecting your performance! Fair play to you if you handled it though! Hope you got most of them but, trust me, you should be happy even if you got the bare minimum of 3 on first go, giving your study time constraints. I wouldnt be stressing over just two exams if you feel confident with the rest! Just as a matter of interest, while im not saying it was bad advice, did anyone try to dissuade you attempting 8 first time out? I think 4 or 5 is a nice balance, given the nature of the curriculums, as it allows you room for error in 1, even 2 exams.

Fe1stresser · 23-03-2013 3:15pm

Company and constitutional are two of the 6 I'm hoping I passed. Eu and contract were non starters due the paper and the fact contract was the last exam respectively.

Can people indicated what they wrote for company and constitutional?

In company I did coporate veil, restriction, crystallisation of Charges, directors duties and oppression ( last 2 being horrendous)

In constitutional, i did question 1 and 8 on religion and privacy respectively, sep of power, fair procedures and a case note

I think I've a good shot at tort, criminal and equity...

ShamblesB · 23-03-2013 3:53pm

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

I can understand the need to knock a subject like direct effect out once in a while but to not compensate this by including other popular areas or not distorting the manner of asking questions is unfair and doesnt measure a students overall knowledge of the EU area. For example that conferral of powers question and its reference to the Polish parliament quote. Why decide, when the exam is missing already significantly consistently asked questions to alter the overall genesis of a question which has always been asked in the same format, more or less. I covered over 90% of the curriculum feeling leaving out aspects like brussels regulations, eu criminal law , movement of capital etc could be compensated. But no. He must really have had a grilling after passing 70 % of takers in october.

I would say that's exactly what happened. They thought the exam was getting too easy! I'm on the same boat as you, covered nearly all the course, left out Brussels reg and fmc and a small few other things and they all came up! Unlucky... I just hope I manage to get 3 because really do not want to have to resit them all! Do you know how the legislative role of the European Parliament differs from that of the MS parliaments? Or how long should a case note answer be? Mine were about 1 page each but that's with huge writing! Just hope I picked up a few marks...

ShamblesB · 23-03-2013 3:55pm

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Company and constitutional are two of the 6 I'm hoping I passed. Eu and contract were non starters due the paper and the fact contract was the last exam respectively.

Can people indicated what they wrote for company and constitutional?

In company I did coporate veil, restriction, crystallisation of Charges, directors duties and oppression ( last 2 being horrendous)

In constitutional, i did question 1 and 8 on religion and privacy respectively, sep of power, fair procedures and a case note

I think I've a good shot at tort, criminal and equity...

Well done for attempting 8! Very brave!

is the directors duty question you're talking about the one with the lease/sale of the mountain?

Fe1stresser · 23-03-2013 4:53pm

Yep that's the one....

I had done everything re statutory regulation of directors duties and the common law duties and by the time I got to it after wrecking the oppression quest I was in a blind panic...

ShamblesB · 23-03-2013 7:26pm

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Yep that's the one....

I had done everything re statutory regulation of directors duties and the common law duties and by the time I got to it after wrecking the oppression quest I was in a blind panic...

Yeah, I had a few last questions like that myself. Once you attempt it though you're going to get marks so the main thing seems to be to attempt 5... If you answered your first questions well you may have enough to pass! I'm worried about company too, id say i'm around the 50 mark... Hopefully just above it!

My answer for that question was very brief, I just outlined the duty of disclosure, said it may be a credit transaction withing the meaning of s. 31 1990 act, therefore it could be prohibited and then mentioned about common law duty of avoiding a conflict of interests, ie Regal Hastings v Gulliver, so if he made a profit from the transaction he may have to account to the company. Also, as the directer owned half of the shareholding of the company it would be a connected person withing the meaning of s 27 of the act.

I'm not sure if that's what they were looking for but that's along the lines of my answer! How did u find EU?

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

Comments