FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Thirdfox

Without reserve auctions are (equivalent to) unilateral offers - highest bona fide bidders should get. No valid revocation.

Can't remember the cases

bob_lob_law

I can't believe I'm doing this but was there not a case that said when it was *advertised* as to the highest bidder it was just an invitation to treat?

colonel1

bob_lob_law wrote: »

I can't believe I'm doing this but was there not a case that said when it was *advertised* as to the highest bidder it was just an invitation to treat?

Normally an auction is regarded as an invitation to treat but the words "without reserve" turn it into an offer, Final acceptance of which occurs on the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, so yes I think Eoin validly revoked his "offer" to Carrie. I really hate contract, so I probably got this wrong. It will be interesting to see the examiner's report on same. Hopefully I scaped enough to pass:o

colonel1

Miss_F wrote: »

Fair enough but people from down the country have the same issue when travelling to the exams in Dublin and also have the added disadvantage of not knowing the place an trying to get around.

Dont not if the PPC1 or 2 are on in the afternoon.

Ditto for Dubs going down the country:D Sure it will be interesting to see where the exams will be held in October. Possibly the same venue if that letter JCJC and Hogzy received is anything to go by. Don't forget to leave the uggs at home lol;)

The PPC1 exams were on in the afternoons in the RDS, so I imagine the same applies to the Red Cow.

colonel1

Dylan123 wrote: »

Just as a way of reflecting all the hard work which we have done for these exams while it is fresh in our minds... and to perhaps improve on the next set after a well deserved break..

Is there anything you would have done differently, or will do differently for the next set?

I will be working on my lousy exam technique, for e.g. studying contract law topics discretely and failing to join the dots in a pressurised exam situation!!! Rushing to answer a question, without reading it properly. Poor time management. Leaving rote learning to the last minute. Guilty as charged alas.

brian__foley

colonel1 wrote: »

Normally an auction is regarded as an invitation to treat but the words "without reserve" turn it into an offer, Final acceptance of which occurs on the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, so yes I think Eoin validly revoked his "offer" to Carrie. I really hate contract, so I probably got this wrong. It will be interesting to see the examiner's report on same. Hopefully I scaped enough to pass:o

The simple advertisement to hold an auction isn't actionable if they don't actually hold the auction - Harris v Nickerson.

However, when one holds an auction on specific terms and conditions (like with tenders) one then offers something quite specific. People seem confuse the contract as regards the holding of the auction with the contract to buy the item. Kenny J dealt with all this in Tully. If a contract is advertised as without reserve, then the contract is formed once one bids such that the whole process is, in fact, without reserve such that enables one to sue on the basis that the terms of the process have been breached. The hammer isn't relevant to that contract.

I haven't seen the paper, so can't comment on it.

colonel1

brian__foley wrote: »

The simple advertisement to hold an auction isn't actionable if they don't actually hold the auction - Harris v Nickerson.

However, when one holds an auction on specific terms and conditions (like with tenders) one then offers something quite specific. People seem confuse the contract as regards the holding of the auction with the contract to buy the item. Kenny J dealt with all this in Tully. If a contract is advertised as without reserve, then the contract is formed once one bids such that the whole process is, in fact, without reserve such that enables one to sue on the basis that the terms of the process have been breached. The hammer isn't relevant to that contract.

I haven't seen the paper, so can't comment on it.

Ah dammit I got that muddled up, repeatsville for me so. Though I did get the part about not holding the auction right (though couldn't recall the case name)! Wish I could hammer the stuff into my brain;)

Thanks Brian:)

brian__foley

colonel1 wrote: »

Ah dammit I got that muddled up, repeatsville for me so. Though I did get the part about not holding the auction right (though couldn't recall the case name)! Wish I could hammer the stuff into my brian;)

Thanks Brian:)

Post-mortems rarely make anyone feel good!

colonel1

brian__foley wrote: »

Post-mortems rarely make anyone feel good!

So true. I was just hoping that I would get my first three this time, but that is looking less likely now. Ah well. Will have to wait till the results come out:eek:

littlemac1980

brian__foley wrote: »

Post-mortems rarely make anyone feel good!

What amazes me is that some people won't do the 'post mortem' and bash others for engaging in what I think is a very important aspect of learning where you made your mistakes.

There is simply no substitute for as you say, not feeling good, immediately following an exam. It is the best time, when everything is still fresh in your head, to analyse what you did right and what you did wrong.

It amazes me that some people, having spent weeks or months preparing for an exam, are not then willing to put a few extra hours effort into analysing their performance, simply out of fear they may find out they messed up.

I agree with you Brian that 'Post-mortems rarely make anyone feel good!', that doesn't mean that they aren't extremely valuable in terms of education.

I'm not suggesting you wouldn't agree, I think you probably would, just using your point to as an introduction to mine.

Kamilat

colonel1 wrote: »

Normally an auction is regarded as an invitation to treat but the words "without reserve" turn it into an offer, Final acceptance of which occurs on the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, so yes I think Eoin validly revoked his "offer" to Carrie. I really hate contract, so I probably got this wrong. It will be interesting to see the examiner's report on same. Hopefully I scaped enough to pass:o

So what you are saying is that because Eoin withdrew the car from the auction before the auctioneer's hammer fell, the offer was validly revoked? I hate doing post mortems but this has been bugging me since the exam. I know the 'without reserve' part turns the invitation to treat into a unilateral offer as decided in Tully v Irish Land Commission but then that thing with the hammer...basically confusing

Kamilat

brian__foley wrote: »

The simple advertisement to hold an auction isn't actionable if they don't actually hold the auction - Harris v Nickerson.

However, when one holds an auction on specific terms and conditions (like with tenders) one then offers something quite specific. People seem confuse the contract as regards the holding of the auction with the contract to buy the item. Kenny J dealt with all this in Tully. If a contract is advertised as without reserve, then the contract is formed once one bids such that the whole process is, in fact, without reserve such that enables one to sue on the basis that the terms of the process have been breached. The hammer isn't relevant to that contract.

I haven't seen the paper, so can't comment on it.

Oh my god...so the hammer part was nothing and I thought it was relevant..

frustratedTC

I'm trying to break it down here, not sure i'm correct tho

It was a without reserve auction, so it was an offer, and acceptance of it was Carries bid, so therefore eoin had a contract with carrie.

If the auction was an Invitation to treat, then carries bid would have been an offer, and acceptance would have come in the form of fall of the hammer, and because there was no fall of the hammer then Eoin has no contract with carrie

I think the former scenario is the right 1, tricky to know!

colonel1

Kamilat wrote: »

Oh my god...so the hammer part was nothing and I thought it was relevant..

Sadly yes, I really hate that hammer now:mad:, especially as I discovered that I had rote learned the wrong information from my muddled notes. Ghastly!

Dylan123

Is it possible to complete the two year apprenticeship... (trainee) in countries such as:

-New Zealand
-Canada
-Australia
-Usa
-Hawaii
Also after completing the fe1s, and if you decided to stay abroad would it be possible to do the ppc equivalent there.... prob a complete different system.

paky

Dylan123 wrote: »

Is it possible to complete the two year apprenticeship... (trainee) in countries such as:

-New Zealand
-Canada
-Australia
-Usa
-Hawaii
Also after completing the fe1s, and if you decided to stay abroad would it be possible to do the ppc equivalent there.... prob a complete different system.

i assume you can except for the usa where you are restricted to new york and california.

Mr Nonar

Guys,

Does anybody have any idea on how to approach this question or have any sample answers for it. Very confused. Any help would be appreciated!

Sarah and Joe are unmarried and have been living together since Sarah purchased the family home 10 years ago. Joe’s name is not on the legal title and all the mortgage repayments have been made out of Sarah’s earnings. She has also paid all the day-to-day expenses and household bills. Sarah has a successful career as a general medical practitioner while Joe stays at home to mind the couple’s two children. He has performed all of the necessary housework for the duration of their relationship and last year he redecorated all the bedrooms. He has also, on occasion, acted in an unpaid capacity as a part-time receptionist for Sarah’s medical practice. Sarah and Joe’s relationship has recently broken down. Joe is extremely worried about his financial future and seeks your advice about his entitlement, if any, to an equitable interest in the family home in which he resides with Sarah.

Advise Joe.

234

Mr Nonar wrote: »

Guys,

Does anybody have any idea on how to approach this question or have any sample answers for it. Very confused. Any help would be appreciated!

Sarah and Joe are unmarried and have been living together since Sarah purchased the family home 10 years ago. Joe’s name is not on the legal title and all the mortgage repayments have been made out of Sarah’s earnings. She has also paid all the day-to-day expenses and household bills. Sarah has a successful career as a general medical practitioner while Joe stays at home to mind the couple’s two children. He has performed all of the necessary housework for the duration of their relationship and last year he redecorated all the bedrooms. He has also, on occasion, acted in an unpaid capacity as a part-time receptionist for Sarah’s medical practice. Sarah and Joe’s relationship has recently broken down. Joe is extremely worried about his financial future and seeks your advice about his entitlement, if any, to an equitable interest in the family home in which he resides with Sarah.

Advise Joe.

Pretty simple, he has made no direct contributions, has not contributed to a general family fund, improving the house is irrelevant in the absence of an agreement. The only thing that he has done to gain a beneficial share is work in her medical practice. You also might want to look at the impact of the Civil Partnership Act 2010 which would allow a lot more to be taken into account but only deals with legal shares.

hession.law

234 wrote: »

Pretty simple, he has made no direct contributions, has not contributed to a general family fund, improving the house is irrelevant in the absence of an agreement. The only thing that he has done to gain a beneficial share is work in her medical practice. You also might want to look at the impact of the Civil Partnership Act 2010 which would allow a lot more to be taken into account but only deals with legal shares.

Its ages since I've done property but I would think he has contributed significantly in that his work in the home such as child minding and the general running of the house freed up his wife's income to pay the mortgage so indirectly he contributed to those payments. As for his work as a receptionist that would be irrelevant in this situation.

234

hession.law wrote: »

Its ages since I've done property but I would think he has contributed significantly in that his work in the home such as child minding and the general running of the house freed up his wife's income to pay the mortgage so indirectly he contributed to those payments. As for his work as a receptionist that would be irrelevant in this situation.

The work in the wife's business is definately relevant in this situation, see N v N. The work in the home is irrelevant, see L v L. Freeing up his wife's money to pay the mortgage is only relevant if he is contributing to a general family fund. The fact that he is effectively providing services for free is irrelevant.

hession.law

I stand corrected the case I was thinking of was FG v PG and that dealt with indirect contributions of a financial nature.

Kamilat

Guys on a different note, does anyone find it hard to find some legal experience whilst in between exams? I don't know what to do anymore, I have tried sending off CV's and e-mailing and walked around the offices before and its the same thing ' your cv is very impressive but.... we do not have any positions even for unpaid work experience'. I know times are tough and its probably to do with my location as most firms are only small property oriented firms but still. I'll give it another shot tomorrow but my hopes are fading at this stage...

CFOLEY85

Kamilat wrote: »

Guys on a different note, does anyone find it hard to find some legal experience whilst in between exams? I don't know what to do anymore, I have tried sending off CV's and e-mailing and walked around the offices before and its the same thing ' your cv is very impressive but.... we do not have any positions even for unpaid work experience'. I know times are tough and its probably to do with my location as most firms are only small property oriented firms but still. I'll give it another shot tomorrow but my hopes are fading at this stage...

yes, yes, and YES!!!! I thought it was just me. I have sent out so many cv's and hearing little if anything back. Have you any legal experience at all yet? I don't and Im begining to think I never will at this stage

Kamilat

CFOLEY85 wrote: »

yes, yes, and YES!!!! I thought it was just me. I have sent out so many cv's and hearing little if anything back. Have you any legal experience at all yet? I don't and Im begining to think I never will at this stage

No way! Thank god I'm not alone. No i've no experience and yes my hopes r down to a zero! I've been trying for the last two years now and its pointless. The thing that drives me crazy is that they all say oh your Cv is absolutely brlliant blah blah and then nothing. I don't even want to get paid for it. Oh I don't know. Anyone have any tips? I went around 20 offices this morning asking to speak to partners and most were busy even if I waited around but I got to talk to a few solicitors themselves and I'll see if I will hear anything from then but then even at that they didn't sound too hopeful about taking me on...

steph86

Yeh i know exactly how your feeling. i've sent out cvs and gone into places and the same thing happens. The places i sent my cv into just send it back to me and say sorry nothing available. I always say unpaid, but it doesnt matter at all. When you go in to places the receptionist always says they are too busy to speak. You leave your name and number and nothing! so frustrating!!!!!
It is so hard to get your foot in the door these days.
apologise for rant but it is annoying.

Kamilat

steph86 wrote: »

Yeh i know exactly how your feeling. i've sent out cvs and gone into places and the same thing happens. The places i sent my cv into just send it back to me and say sorry nothing available. I always say unpaid, but it doesnt matter at all. When you go in to places the receptionist always says they are too busy to speak. You leave your name and number and nothing! so frustrating!!!!!
It is so hard to get your foot in the door these days.
apologise for rant but it is annoying.

Yeap you are exactly describing my situation there....

Call Me Ishmael

Kamilat...can I ask how long ur looking now? I have just started and although I have only sent out 2 CV's by email must admit that I am little disheartened by ur post.....

Kamilat

Call Me Ishmael wrote: »

Kamilat...can I ask how long ur looking now? I have just started and although I have only sent out 2 CV's by email must admit that I am little disheartened by ur post.....

Well...I have been looking for the last two years with no luck at all! So this time I went around the offices myself with my CV's, looking to talk to solicitors themselves. I sent out Cv's last year and all I heard back from some of them is sorry nothing available in this office, your cv is brilliant and good luck with your future career. So yea if you only started then maybe send a few more around. Where are you based? See i'm in a town which isn't huge so maybe that's why I'm finding it hard but there are about 24 company's here so when I went around to them myself during the week I spoke with a few solicitors who told me they would think about it. Better than nothing I suppose but still not exactly there yet..

Dylan123

234 wrote: »

Pretty simple, he has made no direct contributions, has not contributed to a general family fund, improving the house is irrelevant in the absence of an agreement. The only thing that he has done to gain a beneficial share is work in her medical practice. You also might want to look at the impact of the Civil Partnership Act 2010 which would allow a lot more to be taken into account but only deals with legal shares.

What examination paper is this taken from? the family home protection act only covers the non owning spouse (wife/ husband) constructive trust etc.... please dont tell me that was the question from the last sitting as i may have failed to read the question properly.... (non married ... the key)

JCJCJC

Excuse an off-topic post, but I'm badly stuck for something. I'm researching a family law matter for a friend, and I need a case called W.O.R. v E.H. & An Bord Uchtala [1996] 2IR - I've tried all over the www and have failed to date, bailii, westlaw, firstlaw etc. If anybody has a way of getting it I would really appreciate the help, only trying here having failed everywhere else - I don't have access to a law library at the moment. Please PM me if you have a way of getting it.

Paper or electronic, it doesn't matter to me.

Thanks

JC