FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Jamie-b

You are a hero!!!! I couldnt find them as online I was looking at the 1893 act that imcluded the amendments added into the article.

GrenadeBoy

I was wondering could someone tell me if it was possible to write about fairness of procedures in criminal trials (eg admissibility of evidence, legal rep., pre-trial publicity) for the essay question about the right to a person's good name? Or, did it have to be on natural and constitutional justice with regard to civil trials?

Cheers!!!

sarcastra

Well, any thoughts on EU exam? I thought they rolled a lot of topics into the questions... They were also phrased from difficult angles, like A.226-228 being mainly from a case law perspective. I didnt have one case to quote! Ah well...

gatorade

brian__foley wrote: »

Agreed, 100%. I would go a bit futher, and aim (after the above) to make up notes that I can print and physically fill in the gaps over and over again. It would basically be a table of contents with a list of cases. Suppose I was trying to make notes on, just to take bit of Contract Law, the "offer", it woudl just be.

1. Offer - the Definition

Clarke Definition / Friel Definition


2. Offer - Is it Really an Offer?

Clifton v Palumbo - words used may not be an offer if they couldn't reasonably be regarded as a clear and unambiguous statement of the terms upon which one was willing to contract.

Gibson v MCC - MCC only stated a potential willingness to sell. No Offer

Storer v MCC - MCC stated a far more certain offer.

Harvey v Facey - Will you sell me BH Pen - "lowest price acceptable" - not an offer.

3. Offer v Invitation to Treat

Min for I&C v Pim - coat in shop window not an offer
Pharm Soc v Boots CC - goods on shelves not an offer
Partridge v Crittenden - ad in paper not an offer
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store - where retailer made a clear and definite statement which appeared to look like a unilateral offer and requested something in exchange for something ....could be an offer
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

[etc]

4. Offer v Mere Puff

[etc]


And so on....

Once you can fill in the gaps, then you move to just having the section headings and the case names, and you don't need prompting as to what each case says.

Then eventually you get to being able to "skeleton" out the whole course, just from memory (assuming you can study like this).

If anything it makes people realise that cases are grouped in manuals / books for a reason and it makes it harder to miss issues.

Hope that helps

Torres was the choice...and what a choice...86 points that week.

Really appreciate that, thanks!

rick flair

Yeah thought i was a tough paper, to have Direct Effect and Preliminary in the one question FFS. I thought i would get two out of each topic. The mulitple choice case were SHT. I managed Citizenship (poorly), Equality, MEQR and ART 24 aswell etc...

Not that many sitting the exam so hopefully the tough paper will bring out the easy markers.

sarcastra

rick flair wrote: »

Yeah thought i was a tough paper, to have Direct Effect and Preliminary in the one question FFS. I thought i would get two out of each topic. The mulitple choice case were SHT. I managed Citizenship (poorly), Equality, MEQR and ART 24 aswell etc...

Not that many sitting the exam so hopefully the tough paper will bring out the easy markers.

So right about the cases. I avoided them like the plague. The markers were always yapping in the exam reports that people didnt know the detail and I would certainly have been one of those had I even attempted to answer them.

I didnt do great on the Citizenship question either - it involved too much thought because they bombarded us with detail - you really have to be able to apply what you've learnt to the facts and disregard the irrelevant information. Hard to rein yourself in.

Was 8(B) about Article 86? As soon as I saw it wasnt about Article 82 specifically, I had to skip.

kd28

back to Equity ,

I dont know what the hell happened to me, delighted to see the topics I wanted there, DMC, Mareva , Estoppel, Undue Influence , did the two part donation mortis causa / rectification question first , was already struggling half way through rectification and went onto Mareva injunction question, and got a total blank, I think I had just looked at Mareva too much - so stopped writing moved onto next question, and did my three others the undue influence,the estopple and the third escapes me, but best efforts and good answers I think,

I feel i have lost that Mareva question I did little more than waffle in the first half, and had read an article on the "golden thread" in Mareva injunctions and managed to barely spit something out for second part,

I have never experienced anything like this, blank, I can answer them now but yesterday nothing,

So does anyone know how they mark Equity?

Jev/N

kd28 wrote: »

So does anyone know how they mark Equity?

I've heard before that Equity has the highest pass rate - 80% - can anyone confirm if this is actually true?

Shinners23

Hi All,

Yes, I felt that Q1 on Art 226 and 228 could have been worded better... as in my notes quoted cases where few and far between.

Also, the question on John and his case on the motorway, can anyone tell me what I should of wrote?!!!!

I thought it was an OK exam but not sure if I did enough to pass... Fingers and toes crossesd.

32minutes

kd28 wrote: »

back to Equity ,

I dont know what the hell happened to me, delighted to see the topics I wanted there, DMC, Mareva , Estoppel, Undue Influence , did the two part donation mortis causa / rectification question first , was already struggling half way through rectification and went onto Mareva injunction question, and got a total blank, I think I had just looked at Mareva too much - so stopped writing moved onto next question, and did my three others the undue influence,the estopple and the third escapes me, but best efforts and good answers I think,

I feel i have lost that Mareva question I did little more than waffle in the first half, and had read an article on the "golden thread" in Mareva injunctions and managed to barely spit something out for second part,

I have never experienced anything like this, blank, I can answer them now but yesterday nothing,

So does anyone know how they mark Equity?

well from what i see you lost a quarter of one question and a bit of a write off on another so i wouldnt be too worried too much if your first question was reasonable enough, alot of people will tell you about doing a terrible "fifth question" and still passing.
plus mareva injunctions came up badly in the exam anyway so i doubt the standard will be ridiculously high for that one

queequeg

What are they thinking putting words like "axiomatic" and "tincture of phantasm" on an exam paper? Don't they know that there are people sitting the exams whos first language is not English?
ffs have a heart.

rick flair

I was not too sure on this one, this was my half question (ran out of time )with an attempt on b. Hopefully by the skin i will just about scrape by the pass line or just fall over it as i do not want to do this paper again.

snowbomber

i thought it was a difficult exam, iv passed 7 and this is my third time sitting eu. i really dont get the style of the paper did 1 v good q 3 not bad, 1 pretty bad

still felt like i failed initially very difficult to call it in eu

anyone else agree??!

vote4pedro

Anyone else studying Property?

Just wondering about the short answer questions, the write a note about any two of the following...
In a subject like Equity I had a few pages worth of notes for each of those short answer questions, like say Rectification or Donatio Mortis Causa. For Property, if you take say write a short note on Fee Tail, or Quia Emptores or something like that, I have maybe half the amount of information. I don't think I'm leaving anything major out, but there just seems to be a lot less case law to discuss to flesh out an answer.
Anyone else find that there's less to talk about in certain sections of Property or have I missed out on something major?

Jev/N

vote4pedro wrote: »

Anyone else find that there's less to talk about in certain sections of Property or have I missed out on something major?

Yeh I've found the same with note questions on the likes of the rule in Tulk v Moxay and Halsel v Brizell, I think that's just the nature of some of them TBH, it wouldn't be a good idea to waffle on a load of shít just to fill it out IMO

vote4pedro

Thanks for that, although you caused a minor freakout when i didn't recognise either of those cases luckily thats just because Im not doing covenants, I'm leaving out Covenants, Family Property, Easements and Mortgages. Risky stuff I know but have run out of time to do any more. Hopefully knowing:
Tenure
Equity
Freehold Estates
Settled Land
Registered Land
Succession
Co-Ownership
Licenses
Landlord/Tenant
Adverse Possession

will be enough, even though it looks like at this rate that Ill be learning Adverse Possession at about 6am Thursday morning. I'm fairly terrified that I wont get five questions from the above =/

Jev/N

Maybe a bit risky but I'd say you'll be fine with the topics you've done! You'll only need 3 from 6 provided succession appears as 2 full questions....

I'm thinking there will be 2 "note" questions this year as there have been for the past 4-5 papers and they're usually pretty handy if you know the overall topics, so that kinda ups the odds in our favour! I can't be certain and it could go back to 1 note question on the whole paper possibly

vote4pedro

Hmm, I see Adverse Possession is pretty small...maybe I'll have time to do Easements as well, or at least get enough of a grasp to attempt a question on it. Going to be a long day tomorrow!

Jev/N

Best of luck with it!

I_hate_FE1s

Just wondering if I'll be alright for fridays exam I am studying....

Formation of Contract - Offer, Acceptance, Intention to Create Legal Relations and Consideration. Might do a quick revision of estoppel cos it seems regular enough...

Contents of Contract - Express & Implied Terms, Exclusions Clauses

Remedies - Damages

Void and Vitiating Factors - Duress, Misrep, Undue Influence, Mistake.

Jev/N

I_hate_FE1s wrote: »

Just wondering if I'll be alright for fridays exam I am studying....

Formation of Contract - Offer, Acceptance, Intention to Create Legal Relations and Consideration. Might do a quick revision of estoppel cos it seems regular enough...

Contents of Contract - Express & Implied Terms, Exclusions Clauses

Remedies - Damages

Void and Vitiating Factors - Duress, Misrep, Undue Influence, Mistake.

Pretty much exactly what I'm studying - Estoppel is pretty regular so I'd keep that in there

Otherwise, maybe take a look at discharge of contracts, specifically frustration and breach

Chip Ralston

As if there aren't enough confusing elements to a Criminal Law FE1 they go and give the same name to two problem characters in the in one paper. W@nkers.

sunnyside

Anybody know what the key point for Q8 the domestic violence question was? I know there was some law change or ammendment to deal with this situation but I don't know what it was so didn't do that question.

And Q6 about the guy in the gang--was that burgulary or robbery? To me it began as type 1 burgulary with intent before breaking in, then kind of became a type 2 burgulary after he formed a new intention inside the property but locking the guy in the bathroom involves force so isn't that robbery? It was confusing. I also mentioned false imprisonment and self induced duress.

legallad

sunnyside wrote: »

Anybody know what the key point for Q8 the domestic violence question was? I know there was some law change or ammendment to deal with this situation but I don't know what it was so didn't do that question.

And Q6 about the guy in the gang--was that burgulary or robbery? To me it began as type 1 burgulary with intent before breaking in, then kind of became a type 2 burgulary after he formed a new intention inside the property but locking the guy in the bathroom involves force so isn't that robbery? It was confusing. I also mentioned false imprisonment and self induced duress.

Key point for question 8 was provocation and battered wife syndrome centering on cases of thornton, O'donoghue and Ahluwalia. There is domestic violence legislation but that would be more centered to family law and totally relevant to the problem at hand.

For Q6 i went with aggravated burglary as opposed to robbery and he adapted the innocent article, being the srewdriver, to threaten to cause injury so it became a weapon of offence. Then as you said false imprisonment, self induced duress and threats to kill under s.5 of NFOPA Act 1997.

Q.2 was extremely busy, there were so many issues.

Overall I thought it was a reasonably fair paper but you needed to know aot of the course to pick up on all the minor issues within the problem questions such as demands for payments under s.11 of 1997 act in q.2.

Hows everyone fixed for property??

Dante09

Hey guys...finished exams yesturday but a wee bit bored and hung over today and found this on rollonfriday to cheer the rest of yee up:
Trainees at a "small but respected practice in Dublin" have been banned from the office lift, which is apparently solely for the use of partners and senior associates.

Best of luck to people still doing them....just 2 left...hang in there!

sunnyside

legallad wrote: »

Key point for question 8 was provocation and battered wife syndrome centering on cases of thornton, O'donoghue and Ahluwalia. There is domestic violence legislation but that would be more centered to family law and totally relevant to the problem at hand.

For Q6 i went with aggravated burglary as opposed to robbery and he adapted the innocent article, being the srewdriver, to threaten to cause injury so it became a weapon of offence. Then as you said false imprisonment, self induced duress and threats to kill under s.5 of NFOPA Act 1997.

Glad I didn't do the domestic violence question. Clearly wasn't prepared for that!

I kind of like the busy question probably because I know an overwiew of everything without too much detail. I did mention aggravated burgulary but I thought it needed to be a firearm or something that led the victim to believe it was a firearm even if it wasn't.


Can't help with property, haven't done that yet:)

sarcastra

Well the study is going slowly, slowly, slowly for Property...

Just wanted an opinion on minimising topics if possible please?

In my opinion, mortgages and landlord/tenant are the largest topics. I am going to leave landlord/tenant out I think and do other smaller topics instead.

I was thinking of just learning the position of the mortgagee and judgment mortgages for mortgages. Anyone else doing something similar or are you learning everything like creation of mortgages and stuff. I really do not want to have to do that...

Thanks!

vote4pedro

I'm not doing mortgages at all...I wouldn't be able to write a single line on it. Like you I'm stuck trying to minimise topics after stupidly leaving land till the last minute. The way I see it is Succession, Mortgages and Landlord Tenant are the biggest topics in size. Succession seems guaranteed to be two questions, so I'm definitely doing that. Also Mortgages came up on both of the last two papers (repeated question) but LL/Tenant wasn't on either paper. May mean there's a slightly higher chance of LL/T coming up, it would be strange for such an important topic not to be on three papers in a row.

sarcastra

vote4pedro wrote: »

May mean there's a slightly higher chance of LL/T coming up, it would be strange for such an important topic not to be on three papers in a row.

Yeah, I think most people would choose to only do one or the other when it comes to mortgages and landlord/tenant.

Is there a certain aspect of LL/T that is the most important in your view? Maybe I'll have a read of it at 3am just in case I need to write something in desperation.

2ndtimer

Contract

Does any one know anything relating to a case called Digitalmali? Im convinced this is an incorrect citation of the name, however the examiner quotes it in the 0ct 2008 report.

Thanks