FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

chops018

Fe1exams wrote: »

For the love of God Chops dont leave out licenses! Its a highly examinable area! best of luck!!!!!

Examined three times since Oct 2006, unless ye count the question on the last sitting that saw estoppel being mentioned in the reports and that a licence might be the result.

Anyway seems to come up in part questions more so, and I'm trying to steer clear of them.

Thanks for the good luck message. I'll be on here tomorrow either giving out or being delighted haha.

evercloserunion

Ballsed up Company. Could basically only do 4 questions, and half of one of them I got substantially wrong. I didn't even know what s218 was about, as I couldn't afford the bonkers prices for the legislation, so I took a guess that it was a general question on involuntary winding up and turns out I was wrong, though I wouldn't have been able to write an essay question on post-commencement dispositions anyway.

Very annoyed, thought I would get 5 good questions based on previous exams but I came up short. I only hope that I pass tort now so that when I repeat I won't have to do company directly after another exam again.

Keane91

I was the same with company had 4 good questions then got confused about my last 1. Is it possible still to pass on more or less 4 questions?
All my answers except for my last 1 were probably over 65% if marked to college standard, i'm unsure on the to the way the marking works as I have never sat them before, is it still similar to college as in around 60% constitutes a decent knowledge of cases and the principles then applying this to the facts and hitting on most of but not all the issues involved, or is to get around 60% a far higher standard?

evercloserunion

Keane91 wrote: »

I was the same with company had 4 good questions then got confused about my last 1. Is it possible still to pass on more or less 4 questions?
All my answers except for my last 1 were probably over 65% if marked to college standard, i'm unsure on the to the way the marking works as I have never sat them before, is it still similar to college as in around 60% constitutes a decent knowledge of cases and the principles then applying this to the facts and hitting on most of but not all the issues involved, or is to get around 60% a far higher standard?

If you did four good questions and one poor one I think you have a good chance of passing. If you get 0% for one question, you could still pass by getting a 62.5% average on the others. However, that's not as easy as it sounds, as in my experience you are marked much harder than in college. I was a middling 2-1 student in college and last sitting all my grades were in the 50s. I have seen people get in the 60s though so it's distinctly possible. And presuming you probably didn't get absolutely nothing for your bad question, it's not as much of an uphill struggle.

In my case I would have gotten 0% for the s218 question as I answered the complete wrong thing and getting half another question wrong pretty much rules out compensation for me.

UberStressed

evercloserunion wrote: »

Ballsed up Company. Could basically only do 4 questions, and half of one of them I got substantially wrong. I didn't even know what s218 was about, as I couldn't afford the bonkers prices for the legislation, so I took a guess that it was a general question on involuntary winding up and turns out I was wrong, though I wouldn't have been able to write an essay question on post-commencement dispositions anyway.

Very annoyed, thought I would get 5 good questions based on previous exams but I came up short. I only hope that I pass tort now so that when I repeat I won't have to do company directly after another exam again.

Same on s218q, don't have a comp act and in the rush of reading the paper some how got it into my head it was about reg of charges, which was the above question.. Only realised after I'd finished and then for the life of me couldn't figure out what the hell it was.. I wrote half of my answer about the order of priority so maybe it wasn't all a complete loss and I'll scrap 1 or 2 marks but I'm guessing it will be a resit and will be forking out for the C Acts

RandolphEsq

Property tomorrow, doing;

- Tenure, decline of Feudalism, Quia emptores and remnants today
- Freehold estates
- Co-ownership
- Running of the burden in equity
- Judgment mortgages
- Co-ownership
- Succession
- Landlord and tenant (Statutory Rights under 1980 Act, distinction between lease and licence, and creating a lease in equity)
- Family Property
- Adverse Possession

Seems to be enough, and I feel prepared. Obviously there is a niggling 'what about easements and licences?' in my mind but I know all those topics sufficiently well to feel prepared. Looking forward to unwinding with some Champion's League tonight!

chops018

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Property tomorrow, doing;

- Tenure, decline of Feudalism, Quia emptores and remnants today
- Freehold estates
- Co-ownership
- Running of the burden in equity
- Judgment mortgages
- Co-ownership
- Succession
- Landlord and tenant (Statutory Rights under 1980 Act, distinction between lease and licence, and creating a lease in equity)
- Family Property
- Adverse Possession

Seems to be enough, and I feel prepared. Obviously there is a niggling 'what about easements and licences?' in my mind but I know all those topics sufficiently well to feel prepared. Looking forward to unwinding with some Champion's League tonight!

I don't know how you're going near tenure and that stuff, I didn't bother go near the equity side of things either and for L&T I don't think they have asked on the lease licence distinction in years, not saying it won't come up, just don't think it's really topical anymore, I'm hoping for a question on the influence of 1860 act on 2004 act and a discussion of 2004 act to be honest. Other than that we seem to have 6 of the same topics, so good to see people going for generally the same stuff apart from 2 or 3.

I'm gonna watch the first half of the matches, if they're good I'll stay tuned in, if not I'll be back to study. Got a good revision done today and I do feel prepared with the topics I've covered but you can never do too much so I literally might just watch the first half for a break from the studies.

RandolphEsq

Feeling guilty about watching, gonna watch the highlights on Setanta at 11:15 I think!

chops018

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Feeling guilty about watching, gonna watch the highlights on Setanta at 11:15 I think!

Yeah I feel guilty too but I may watch a bit of it, might just watch the first half hour then get the owl lad to shout up at me if someone scores.

Hope the study is going well.

DeSourire

Hey in relation to Termination of Co-Ownership are people learning pre 2009 Act as well as post? I cant get to grips with even the simple things anymore.

chops018

DeSourire wrote: »

Hey in relation to Termination of Co-Ownership are people learning pre 2009 Act as well as post? I cant get to grips with even the simple things anymore.

As in partition or sale? I'd go over both, the 2009 act is mostly retrospective and so where such agreements were in place pre 2009 they will still be subject to old law and so a discussion of the old law would be needed.

Wasn't sale and partition just given a statutory footing in the 2009 act? (section 31).

It just abolished the equitable partition as was used by the courts in Irwin .v. Deasy, but then the LRC expressed disquiet about its use hence the abolishment in 2009 act section 31(6).

So it seems the position is the same regarding sale and partition except for equitable sale or partition. (my understanding of it)

Lola73

Hey guys, and chance someone would be so kind and tell me what came up for Criminal in March 2012 and whether they were problem questions or essay? Thanks!

chops018

Lola73 wrote: »

Hey guys, and chance someone would be so kind and tell me what came up for Criminal in March 2012 and whether they were problem questions or essay? Thanks!

(Q.1)
S2 assault
S3 assault
S4 assault
Murder
Manslaughter
Complicity
Problem question

(Q.2)
Strict liability
Essay

(Q.3)
Defence of Mistake
Focussing on the:
(a) Actus Reus
(b) Mens rea

(Q.4)
(i) Attempt
(ii) Soliciting to commit murder
(iii) Conspiracy
(iv) Contempt (1-3 types)

(Q.5)
(i) Detention (Treatment persons custody Garda Siochana) Regulations 1987
(II) Detention (s4 CJA 1984)
(III) Right to Silence
(iv) Bail

(Q.6)
(i) Assault s2
(ii) False imprisonment
(iii) Insanity

(Q.7)
Criminal causation
(i) Jurys role
(ii) Judges role

(Q.8)
(i) Attempt to have Sexual Intercourse with a Mentally Impaired person
(ii) Rape s4 1990 Act
(III) Incest
(IV) Rape s2 1981 Act

Lola73

Thanks so much - I really appreciate it!!!

userlady

What topics are people studying for EU??

The212

how is everyone set for tomorrow?

just going through all I can fit in and have left out Consumer Protection, I know it is highly examinable but Im willing to sacrifice it at the minute.

any last minute tips always appreciated and hope study is gong well

sorchauna

So happy with that property paper...anytime I see findings I know Im ok! And then the two succession, quite a passable paper.

Now onto contract...three exams in a row is getting tough!

crosshair12

sorchauna wrote: »

So happy with that property paper...anytime I see findings I know Im ok! And then the two succession, quite a passable paper.

Now onto contract...three exams in a row is getting tough!

I normally don't do PDA's, but... I love you, Dr. Parkes!

chops018

Yeah it was a very manageable paper. Very happy with it.

Glinda!

The212 wrote: »

how is everyone set for tomorrow?

just going through all I can fit in and have left out Consumer Protection, I know it is highly examinable but Im willing to sacrifice it at the minute.

any last minute tips always appreciated and hope study is gong well

Would anyone be so kind as to tell us what the revision courses emphasised? Im at a loss as to what i should b focusing on! Thanks

RandolphEsq

Property went okay; not confident, not upset. Passing the first 4 indicates that I should be fine based on my perception of how I did but if I don't get my hopes up they won't be shut down.

Denham

Did anyone spot any tricks to the property law paper??? the only 1 i saw was on the construction of a will ... meaning s90 extrinsic - 4 corner/arm chair/ latent & patent ambiguity....

I wondered did the last succession need more than s117... formal requirements i added a bit on.. not sure if that was required....

chops018

Denham wrote: »

Did anyone spot any tricks to the property law paper??? the only 1 i saw was on the construction of a will ... meaning s90 extrinsic - 4 corner/arm chair/ latent & patent ambiguity....

I wondered did the last succession need more than s117... formal requirements i added a bit on.. not sure if that was required....

Don't think it was but if you had the time to stick it in then no harm I suppose.

As for the construction question I started off by discussing the Heron .v. Ulster Bank (adopted here in Bank of Ireland .v. Graynor) and the 5 things they will use when constructing a will. Then moved onto Extrinsic Evidence - 4 corners/arm chair/latent ambiguity/where there is no mistake on the face of the will/section 90.

I did the section 117 question last and when I was finished I had some time to look back over the paper and I think I might have got a better answer with the easements question. Nonetheless I got a discussion of section 117 and 5 cases regarding to it so I should be fine. Also I was very happy with the other 4 answers thankfully.

On to contract now.

DeSourire

chops018 wrote: »

Don't think it was but if you had the time to stick it in then no harm I suppose.

As for the construction question I started off by discussing the Heron .v. Ulster Bank (adopted here in Bank of Ireland .v. Graynor) and the 5 things they will use when constructing a will. Then moved onto Extrinsic Evidence - 4 corners/arm chair/latent ambiguity/where there is no mistake on the face of the will/section 90.

I did the section 117 question last and when I was finished I had some time to look back over the paper and I think I might have got a better answer with the easements question. Nonetheless I got a discussion of section 117 and 5 cases regarding to it so I should be fine. Also I was very happy with the other 4 answers thankfully.

On to contract now.

Hey,

Do you mind me asking what you are covering for Contract and if you are focussing on anything in particular, having examined the past papers my head is wrecked, there are multiple topics everywhere and I just don't have the time or the mental ability!!

chops018

DeSourire wrote: »

Hey,

Do you mind me asking what you are covering for Contract and if you are focussing on anything in particular, having examined the past papers my head is wrecked, there are multiple topics everywhere and I just don't have the time or the mental ability!!

Must say the revision for contract isn't going to well for me now, wrecked from today. I have this covered (trying to go over it now):

Offer and acceptance, consideration and estoppel, formalities, construction, privity, terms, exclusion clauses, invalidity (all, but thinking of leaving duress out now), discharge (only breach and frustration), damages (all parts).

How about you?

crosshair12

Denham wrote: »

Did anyone spot any tricks to the property law paper??? the only 1 i saw was on the construction of a will ... meaning s90 extrinsic - 4 corner/arm chair/ latent & patent ambiguity....

I wondered did the last succession need more than s117... formal requirements i added a bit on.. not sure if that was required....

I mentioned the LRS/s.111 briefly on the basis that it might impinge on Ken. Not much details as we weren't asked to advise the surviving spouse...

Fe1exams

crosshair12 wrote: »

I mentioned the LRS/s.111 briefly on the basis that it might impinge on Ken. Not much details as we weren't asked to advise the surviving spouse...

Yes indeed, Ken and Julies interest would be impacted on the testamentary restrictions afforded to the spouse in the form of the s111 lrs and s56 for the appropriation of the family home... in order to advice Ken and Julie one would need to mention that the spouse need not be provided for in the will.

I mentioned that the will was valid under s77/78, but would be subject to the stipulations of a s111 lrs & s56 for the surviving spouse and of course the bones was around s117.

What about treasure trove - did u say it vested in the state?

crosshair12

Fe1exams wrote: »

crosshair12 wrote: »

I mentioned the LRS/s.111 briefly on the basis that it might impinge on Ken. Not much details as we weren't asked to advise the surviving spouse...

Yes indeed, Ken and Julies interest would be impacted on the testamentary restrictions afforded to the spouse in the form of the s111 lrs and s56 for the appropriation of the family home... in order to advice Ken and Julie one would need to mention that the spouse need not be provided for in the will.

I mentioned that the will was valid under s77/78, but would be subject to the stipulations of a s111 lrs & s56 for the surviving spouse and of course the bones was around s117.

What about treasure trove - did u say it vested in the state?

I sat on the fence a little and said it would vest in the State if it was of archaeological interest, and that the discovery of the item should be notified to the State. If its of no archaeological value I suggested Sean would have to prove ownership to take possession. Otherwise it's Bob's.

Fe1exams

I assume as it was an easy paper lots of marks will go for accuracy of issue spotting... everyone will get the gist of it but how many will hit the nail on the head 100%... so frustrating if u miss a little thing you knew the answer to!

fe1 fun fun fun times!

itsonlybla

chops018 wrote: »

Must say the revision for contract isn't going to well for me now, wrecked from today. I have this covered (trying to go over it now):

Offer and acceptance, consideration and estoppel, formalities, construction, privity, terms, exclusion clauses, invalidity (all, but thinking of leaving duress out now), discharge (only breach and frustration), damages (all parts).

How about you?

Duress is succinct, only a handful of cases and easy to apply...