FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

ShamblesB

I suppose so, no point rambling on!

leitrimjoe90

frustratedTC wrote: »

sorry to annoy you all, trying to figure out unconstitutionality effects on a challenger from Oct 2012, Q7, is it simply that the primary rule from Murphy applies that one should be redressed, but that this is subject to limitations if you sit on your rights etc?

what do you mean? if you mean a finding of invalidity it will be invalid from the date of judgment but then application of the rule is not necessarily the same- A. I thought this question was mostly about property/livelihood/equality and with a possible severance issue. what do you think?

leitrimjoe90

frustratedTC wrote: »

constitutional invalidity is driving me mad! So Art 50 means any laws in force before 1937 Constitutional will be deemed void ab initio if they are inconsistent with the C. But what is the effect if a law enacted after 1937 is declared invalid? Is it the same situation that its void ab initio?

Yes its void from when the law was made...so if a 2013 case decides that a 1998 law is invalid then its invalid from 1998, the date of enactment not the date of judgment

KoukiKeith

Well, that's me for the night folks! Alarm is set for 6am & my ceann really can't take anymore at this hour. Best of luck to everyone in tomorrow .... Let's hope it's a decent paper.

frustratedTC

leitrimjoe90 wrote: »

Yes its void from when the law was made...so if a 2013 case decides that a 1998 law is invalid then its invalid from 1998, the date of enactment not the date of judgment

Yes I agree its void ab initio, and talk about what Henchy J in Murphy v. AG said about the primary rule of redress ie once it is established that a statutory provision is invalid, then persons damnified by an invalid provision will be in principle accorded the necessary redress. And then discuss how this primary rule is subject to exceptions in State (Byrne) v. Frawley and Murphy v. AG. For part (3), i think its a declaration of suspended invalidity. But for the final part i'm unsure as to what possible redress it could be, is it just a tailor-made remedy like in Kinsella, where crt gives non-judicial organs an opportunity to remedy the invalidity instead of immediately striking the provision out. Really though, that seems more relevant to part 3 than 4.

frustratedTC

Best of Luck to Tort people today

leitrimjoe90

frustratedTC wrote: »

Yes I agree its void ab initio, and talk about what Henchy J in Murphy v. AG said about the primary rule of redress ie once it is established that a statutory provision is invalid, then persons damnified by an invalid provision will be in principle accorded the necessary redress. And then discuss how this primary rule is subject to exceptions in State (Byrne) v. Frawley and Murphy v. AG. For part (3), i think its a declaration of suspended invalidity. But for the final part i'm unsure as to what possible redress it could be, is it just a tailor-made remedy like in Kinsella, where crt gives non-judicial organs an opportunity to remedy the invalidity instead of immediately striking the provision out. Really though, that seems more relevant to part 3 than 4.

Its tough to know, I though the suspended remedy would go into part 4 as I thought it was in the nature of an alternative remedy, where you put it shouldnt matter too much as long as you have it...i think severance could go into part 4 as well?

frustratedTC

im inclined to think part 3 is suspended declaration just because it asks when a declaration is not immediately enforceable, and then severance maybe for the 4th part. Very confusing, seems like a nice topic until you look at the Q's! Manuals are useless for constitutional

leitrimjoe90

frustratedTC wrote: »

im inclined to think part 3 is suspended declaration just because it asks when a declaration is not immediately enforceable, and then severance maybe for the 4th part. Very confusing, seems like a nice topic until you look at the Q's! Manuals are useless for constitutional

yes them and sample answers both!

frustratedTC

Yeah GCD sample answers are very wrong on a lot of Q's no wonder we all fail relying on these notes

Gibbonw2

That 'automated machine' aspect to defective products really grinded me. I guess the defenece of 'commercial use' was relevant. Not a bad paper but very offputting in parts and ran out of time. If i scrape a pass ill be happy. All comes down to exam technique doesnt it.

Lily Belle

Caoileann wrote: »

I am covering:

1. Succession
2. Adverse Possession
3. Licences and Proprietary Estoppel
4. Easements
5. Family Property
6. Finding
7. Co-ownership
8. Estates
9. Landlord and Tenant

If I add anything else it will probably be the influence of equity or mortgages but this depends on time!

Would I be covered with this list? Any suggestions on what I maybe should add?

I'd say easily covered with this list. I've the same topics but covenants instead of estates and no landlord and tenant, just so much in it so was going to do mortgages instead but running short on time at this point!

frustratedTC

Is the Red Cow busy, any conferences going on to annoy us again?

chops018

No trespass.. What's that, first time in 12 sittings?

Yeah was an ok paper.. I may have scraped a pass.. Not feeling too confident though.

KoukiKeith

Well that didn't go great. Had 3 decent Qs, 1 average Q (at best) & 1 incomplete. A lot of elements threw me! Resigned to resitting it next October I'm afraid.

kgalway

Same here had two half decent, 2 crap and one half a page! Defective products was awful! Still not even sure if I applied the right topics! Sick of it already!!!

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Well that didn't go great. Had 3 decent Qs, 1 average Q (at best) & 1 incomplete. A lot of elements threw me! Resigned to resitting it next October I'm afraid.

Caoileann

Lily Belle wrote: »

I'd say easily covered with this list. I've the same topics but covenants instead of estates and no landlord and tenant, just so much in it so was going to do mortgages instead but running short on time at this point!

I'm not doing landlord and tenant now either, ran out of time to get it covered. Here's hoping our topics come up and it's a nice paper!

KoukiKeith

kgalway wrote: »

Same here had two half decent, 2 crap and one half a page! Defective products was awful! Still not even sure if I applied the right topics! Sick of it already!!!

Terrible exam alright (IMO). Q7? Certainly not the best way to be initiated into the FE1s.

How do the Law Society view people not turning up for an exam as part of their initial four? I mean if you pass the other three.

JCJCJC

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Terrible exam alright (IMO). Q7? Certainly not the best way to be initiated into the FE1s.

How do the Law Society view people not turning up for an exam as part of their initial four? I mean if you pass the other three.

Don't do it, Marvo. Turn up, sign on, leave after the minimum period if you must. you must SIT your initial four. That means turn up and put your donkey on the chair. Classic interpretation of a term - give the words their plain ordinary meaning. You'd feel a proper clown if you passed your three and had to do them all again for want of turning up for the fourth.

sorchauna

chops018 wrote: »

No trespass.. What's that, first time in 12 sittings?

I know I supsect he no longer wants to be predictable. I agree with others on the way the questions were put, I mean I'd know the area but actually not so sure about what he was looking for. Did give the defective product a go but don't think I spend much on the 'design aspect'...Anybody know if Tort examiner is a nice marker like criminal or is more the side of constitutional?

Robbo

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Terrible exam alright (IMO). Q7? Certainly not the best way to be initiated into the FE1s.

How do the Law Society view people not turning up for an exam as part of their initial four? I mean if you pass the other three.

If I was in the situation of having a "ghost fourth exam", I'd see if there was one banker question on it and prepare the **** out of that and only that in whatever free timeframe you have. Gives you something to do for the minimum time and may yield a useful pro-rata result.

MoneyMilo

sorchauna wrote: »

I know I supsect he no longer wants to be predictable. I agree with others on the way the questions were put, I mean I'd know the area but actually not so sure about what he was looking for. Did give the defective product a go but don't think I spend much on the 'design aspect'...Anybody know if Tort examiner is a nice marker like criminal or is more the side of constitutional?

I don't think he's a particularly generous marker no Likewise, I found it tough today. Exhausting trying to work out what was required for each question.

sorchauna

MoneyMilo wrote: »

I don't think he's a particularly generous marker no Likewise, I found it tough today. Exhausting trying to work out what was required for each question.

I agree, I have never ran out of time in an exam and I nearly did here, kept reading the questions not really knowing what he wanted! Oh well nothing we can do now but just to motor on to the next lot!

Lily Belle

Caoileann wrote: »

I'm not doing landlord and tenant now either, ran out of time to get it covered. Here's hoping our topics come up and it's a nice paper!

I hope so, going on the exam papers I'd be covered every year but you just never know! In saying that, there are a few in my list that I 'know' in the sense I'd be able to put down a page or two if I was stuck for a fifth! Everything's getting a bit jumbled up in my head. You've covered estates, does that include the new trust scheme? My worst nightmare would be estates and the trust that's replaced settled land coming up separately with l & t and mortgages!

KoukiKeith

JCJCJC wrote: »

Don't do it, Marvo. Turn up, sign on, leave after the minimum period if you must. you must SIT your initial four. That means turn up and put your donkey on the chair. Classic interpretation of a term - give the words their plain ordinary meaning. You'd feel a proper clown if you passed your three and had to do them all again for want of turning up for the fourth.

Robbo wrote: »

If I was in the situation of having a "ghost fourth exam", I'd see if there was one banker question on it and prepare the **** out of that and only that in whatever free timeframe you have. Gives you something to do for the minimum time and may yield a useful pro-rata result.

Tomorrow, Company, was meant to be my 'ghost exam' but today's dodgy paper has put the whole lot in doubt. Ugh! Chalk it down to experience at worst I spose.

Tom Young

Anyone who had a dicey experience today, just set it aside and focus on the remaining papers!

bcsod1

Just wondering what ye think I should do?
I have signed up to do 4 exams now there is not a hope in hell I'm going to get anywhere near a pass in any of them, I mean I haven't done a tap due to a couple of things that have cropped up. So I'm not going to pass anything I could even get 0%, it's that bad. I had intended just not to do them but the more I think of it I've paid €420 should I just go in for the experience( as I've never done them before) or is there no point. I kind of think there is no point as I would have to pay to stay somewhere so I'd just be throwing away more money but do ye think it might be worth my while, seen as I've already paid, just to go in so I'll be prepared for how the exams run Oct??
I don't know what to do really

RandolphEsq

If you have done no study there is no point. I don't know what the experience would be worth if you couldn't write anything?!

bcsod1

yep you're right. Think I just needed someone to say it.
Thanks

McCrack

bcsod1 wrote: »

Just wondering what ye think I should do?
I have signed up to do 4 exams now there is not a hope in hell I'm going to get anywhere near a pass in any of them, I mean I haven't done a tap due to a couple of things that have cropped up. So I'm not going to pass anything I could even get 0%, it's that bad. I had intended just not to do them but the more I think of it I've paid €420 should I just go in for the experience( as I've never done them before) or is there no point. I kind of think there is no point as I would have to pay to stay somewhere so I'd just be throwing away more money but do ye think it might be worth my while, seen as I've already paid, just to go in so I'll be prepared for how the exams run Oct??
I don't know what to do really

Just tell them a close family member has passed away and you cant sit them. They will refund you then. €420 back in your pocket v theirs.