FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

shaneybaby

sunnyside wrote: »

Are there any online links to this technique? The seminar isn't available at Griffith Cork and it's not on moodle.



What's a case law wheel?

I'm intrigued with this "wheel" business myself !!

www.memoryacademy.com (not sure if i'm allowed link on boards!?!) There is a book he has, for leaving certs but i got it and used the techniques for law. I mean it's essentially history we're doing.

I think the Journey part of the technique is the most useful. I'm from cork and i use Turners Cross football stadium and the different parts of the ground for offer and acceptance. If a question on o&a ever comes up in work i just think "where is o&a on the map, the stadium, where is the postal rule, top left corner behind the stand, what are the cases....and it's a pretty bizarre image lets say;)

littlemac1980

Any thoughts on Contract today... jesus I did well in it in college but messed this up bad I think?

What was yer outcome for the first part of Ques 1 if ye did it? I said no contract but rather quickly and without much analysis. took a punt on McCoumbray V Thomas and consideration not moving from the promisee... pretty weak me thinks!

Did the paper seem a bit estoppel heavy to anyone else?

sunnyside

shaneybaby thanks for the link, will check it out!

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Any thoughts on Contract today... jesus I did well in it in college but messed this up bad I think?

What was yer outcome for the first part of Ques 1 if ye did it? I said no contract but rather quickly and without much analysis. took a punt on McCoumbray V Thomas and consideration not moving from the promisee... pretty weak me thinks!

Did the paper seem a bit estoppel heavy to anyone else?

I thought there was a contract for the house but not to pay for the wedding.

I'm not feeling good today, had a bit of a panic attack last night, couldn't study, was in tears this morning on the way in. Had no intention of staying longer than 10.15 then I stayed anyway but I only did 3 reasonably ok questions, the other 2 were probably worth nothing. I would give myself around 40% but I wasn't prepared well enough. Glad I stayed though, might as well get some sort of a grade as feedback.

brian__foley

shaneybaby wrote: »

I'm intrigued with this "wheel" business myself !!

www.memoryacademy.com (not sure if i'm allowed link on boards!?!) There is a book he has, for leaving certs but i got it and used the techniques for law. I mean it's essentially history we're doing.

I think the Journey part of the technique is the most useful. I'm from cork and i use Turners Cross football stadium and the different parts of the ground for offer and acceptance. If a question on o&a ever comes up in work i just think "where is o&a on the map, the stadium, where is the postal rule, top left corner behind the stand, what are the cases....and it's a pretty bizarre image lets say;)

So, what area of the course do you ascribe to Stephen Ireland?

Frustration?

Oh mercy me....

Jev/N

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Any thoughts on Contract today... jesus I did well in it in college but messed this up bad I think?

What was yer outcome for the first part of Ques 1 if ye did it? I said no contract but rather quickly and without much analysis. took a punt on McCoumbray V Thomas and consideration not moving from the promisee... pretty weak me thinks!

Did the paper seem a bit estoppel heavy to anyone else?

Actually thought the paper went quite well today. I did Q1 as my 5th question so I didn't dedicate all my concentration to it and the last page of it was bullet points.

Although I recognised the fact of 2 possible contracts, I didn't really bother saying this. Just went through the whole offer/acc/consid./intention and touched on each part. Made brief reference to promissory estoppel and s.2 Statute of Frauds 1695 but didn't have time for much else

If anything there were contracts for neither the wedding nor the house - very weak offers in both, not really unilateral offer either as no words of limitation although they could be implied. Acceptance was by conduct and there was issues with this, whether it was implied that they could accept this way etc. Marriage alone is good consideration but enough here for both contracts. Mackey v Jones case in relation to intention and that it may have to be rebutted. Estoppel was the only real avenue, promissory only possible as a defence obviously but no prior legal relationship. Proprietary could be possible under Dillwyn v Llewelyn. Also, a contract in contemplation of marriage (or marriage as consideration?) needed to be in writing or evidenced in writing under s.2 SoF 1695.

That's what I wrote anyways, haven't verified that in the book as I avoid post-mortems due to only creating unnecessary worry!

legallad

Jev/N wrote: »

Actually thought the paper went quite well today. I did Q1 as my 5th question so I didn't dedicate all my concentration to it and the last page of it was bullet points.

Although I recognised the fact of 2 possible contracts, I didn't really bother saying this. Just went through the whole offer/acc/consid./intention and touched on each part. Made brief reference to promissory estoppel and s.2 Statute of Frauds 1695 but didn't have time for much else

If anything there were contracts for neither the wedding nor the house - very weak offers in both, not really unilateral offer either as no words of limitation although they could be implied. Acceptance was by conduct and there was issues with this, whether it was implied that they could accept this way etc. Marriage alone is good consideration but enough here for both contracts. Mackey v Jones case in relation to intention and that it may have to be rebutted. Estoppel was the only real avenue, promissory only possible as a defence obviously but no prior legal relationship. Proprietary could be possible under Dillwyn v Llewelyn. Also, a contract in contemplation of marriage (or marriage as consideration?) needed to be in writing or evidenced in writing under s.2 SoF 1695.

That's what I wrote anyways, haven't verified that in the book as I avoid post-mortems due to only creating unnecessary worry!

Thought contract was kind of tough today and i knew the sunject well. The essay questions were very bitty and from small areas of the course such as mitigation of loss. Thought problems questions were not too bad, question 1 as mentioned was a bit unclear, said pretty much the same as you Jev but did say they were unilateral offers but forgot about the statute of frauds, good spot by the way i doubt many will have coped onto that.

Now that i have done my first set of fe1s i am reasosnably satisfied with how i have performed but cannot help thinking there has to be a better way. This process is mentally and physically exhausting. It is a glorified memory test and does not exactly set potentially good solicitors apart from the bad. It merely awards those who put it ridiculous hours of study, is this really necessary. I believe they should be assessed on an open book basis, this is the reality of a practising solicitors life, knowing how to and where to look to find the law, for the fe1s people take chances on what they learn and empty their memory after them. It all stems from college exams where we learn 3 or four topics and leave everything else out, we really are not getting a good broad feel of the law. In addition how many people develop a hatred for learn for law after the fe1s??!

sunnyside

legallad wrote: »

This process is mentally and physically exhausting.!

+1000

Scruffy1

I just want to say how truly awful that property paper was on thursday. I passed my first three FE1s last April, failing the fourth exam- property.
So this was my second attempt at the paper and so i was making damn sure in my preparations that i was going to pass it this time round.

So, i studied extra topics on top of all id learnt before. I covered alot of the course, leaving out landlord and tenant because its a wee bit big. I was absolutely gutted when i saw the paper and almost got up and left the hall but i decided to trudge through it, feeling very defeated.

2 succession questions, grand.
Adverse possession- only a 10 marker and i hadnt prepared co-ownership so a max of ten marks there.
Covenants question- grand, had prepared, but wasnt my favourite topic so my answer wasnt the best.
After that, it was pretty much pick the best of the worst! I made a very very feable attempt at question one.

Where the hell were the Settled Land Acts? Nowhere to be found on the paper and that was one of my bankers.
Family Property? Nothing.

Really disappointed that i will have to come back in April to sit this exam for a 3rd time round!!

I'd sit the Leaving Cert again instead of all this torture!!

Scruffy1

shaneybaby wrote: »

I'm intrigued with this "wheel" business myself !!

www.memoryacademy.com (not sure if i'm allowed link on boards!?!) There is a book he has, for leaving certs but i got it and used the techniques for law. I mean it's essentially history we're doing.

I think the Journey part of the technique is the most useful. I'm from cork and i use Turners Cross football stadium and the different parts of the ground for offer and acceptance. If a question on o&a ever comes up in work i just think "where is o&a on the map, the stadium, where is the postal rule, top left corner behind the stand, what are the cases....and it's a pretty bizarre image lets say;)

That guy is a genious. The journey method was the fastest, easiest, most FUN way to learn caselaw- (well, i draw the line at FUN, law isnt fun). But the story's and images i came up with still stick in my head!
I am deadly serious. I went along to his lecture and wasnt convinced right away but went home and tried it myself with a chapter in the book and it works like MAGIC.
For example, for constitutional, i started my journey at my house... drive to work.... parking at work.... in the office.... etc
Another journey i used for EU was a walk i do in the evenings, using other people's houses that i know (their kitchen, living room etc)....

You can use people you know at work to fill in the gaps and link the story together, and use the first thing that comes into your head with each case. I even interlinked the facts of each case into my story so i never forgot a single case in the exam- SERIOUSLY.

I would vouch for this method of learning for any exam where you have to learn names, lists or facts and its so bloody effective. It's the way i study for the FE1s. I dont know how people learn off cases the usual way.

sunnyside

That website is very out of date. The ad is for a Griffith course in 2007. It all sounds a bit daft but I'm intrigued. Is that book with the leaving cert books in easons, etc? Will have a look for it tomorrow.


Do you need 200 different journeys for 200 cases?


Sorry for the constant questions here but how many hours a week are people dedicating to this fe1 business? I mean if I was to do 5 subjects next time that's only 1 month to study each manual.

Dante09

Scruffy1 wrote: »

I dont know how people learn off cases the usual way.

I dont think there is a "usual" way...think everyone has there own method.

Dante09

sunnyside wrote: »

Sorry for the constant questions here but how many hours a week are people dedicating to this fe1 business? I mean if I was to do 5 subjects next time that's only 1 month to study each manual.

I really dont think it matters how many hours you put in, as long as whatever you put in is:
a) enough to cover a sufficient amount of topics
b) the time is spent productively.

Im after sitting my second set of four. I started studying in the first week of june. I had a part time job (15-20 hours a week) but I did 40 hours of study a week--10 hours per subject, without a miss until september when I quit the job and did around 70 hours a week.
In hindsight I spent too much time studying between june and august. I could have spent half of that time and I really think I would have been prepared at an equal level. A lot of it had to do with the guilt factor of "not studying"---but I dont think that really made a difference---all of the core work was done in 30 of days of September. To each their own I suppose.

shaneybaby

Dante09 wrote: »

I really dont think it matters how many hours you put in, as long as whatever you put in is:
a) enough to cover a sufficient amount of topics
b) the time is spent productively.

I'd second the above (and scruffy's post as well but more of that below) I've had a full time job and to be honest at the start it was a head wreck, motivation soon twindled and friends and girlfriends comlained of my lack of attendance any weekend even months before the exams.

Do out a plan and say i can cover say,5 pages of a manual or book a day (some take longer some take shorter). The thing is as dante said it HAS to be productive. Some people like to rewrite their notes, each to their own and if you can recall the notes an hour after you close the book then briliant. The Journey method thing is a bit daft but it's like a filing system for your brain. It HAS to be productie especially if you are a bit short on time. No use reading 100 pages ina week if you can't even remember the topics by the end of it!

First thing is you test yourself(even if you've never opened the book)

Then read the chapter in detail making notes(short ones, Case name, Case facts one line, one/two lines on ratio then anything else) Shouldn't be more than four lines MAX! As you're going along you have a location on your journey. Say use the journey from Croke Park to your house for say property law. Stop in on any locations you are aware of on the way, like the bar Quins and have DMC in there or something. For the three requirement use the three different rooms, contemplation iof death you've a guy Johnny Wilkinson with an aliment (broken leg or something) (he's always injured sure) contemplating death with a pint at the bar (Wilkinson Aliment = Wilkes v Allington: Contemplation of death). You get the idea. Carry on like that linking each section of the journey to the last so you can work backwards or forwards or skip along.

Then test yourself on the journey recalling case names facts and points. Each Journey is one subject (or you could split equity or whatever), each general location a chapter say, each speific location, park bench, pub, shop is a speciic area of that chapter and the characters at that location are the case law and definitions.

skim read, test, skim read test skim read test ad infinitum. You'd be surprised how much you remember. the stupider (and in my case dirtier;) ) the better.

Not sure if the book is in easons, i only ordered one for a cousin in 4th year recently so he still gets the mails and stuff and will post it out. best sunday morning lecture i ever went to.

I'm no expert studier but the above is just my way. I'd love to hear about how others manage to study for these things including the intriguing "wheel of case law" (sounds like a game show!!)

nehemiah

The journey and wheel of case law is not really something I've ever tried but now that I've heard of it I might give it a try in the future.

I am one of the people who write out notes from the manual and generally my way is to create one set of fairly thorough notes, then cut that down to a line or so for each case, which cuts the chapters to a couple of pages of notes each.

I then cut it down further to about one page per chapter with just the chapter heading and sub-headings with the names of the cases beside them and maybe a few key-words to remember them. Although to fit all the names of a case in a sub-heading it usually is in very minute writing and not a chance anyone else could read it!

Dante09

nehemiah wrote: »

The journey and wheel of case law is not really something I've ever tried but now that I've heard of it I might give it a try in the future.

I am one of the people who write out notes from the manual and generally my way is to create one set of fairly thorough notes, then cut that down to a line or so for each case, which cuts the chapters to a couple of pages of notes each.

I then cut it down further to about one page per chapter with just the chapter heading and sub-headings with the names of the cases beside them and maybe a few key-words to remember them. Although to fit all the names of a case in a sub-heading it usually is in very minute writing and not a chance anyone else could read it!

Thats pretty much exactly what i do.

shaneybaby

nehemiah wrote: »

The journey and wheel of case law is not really something I've ever tried but now that I've heard of it I might give it a try in the future.

I am one of the people who write out notes from the manual and generally my way is to create one set of fairly thorough notes, then cut that down to a line or so for each case, which cuts the chapters to a couple of pages of notes each.

I then cut it down further to about one page per chapter with just the chapter heading and sub-headings with the names of the cases beside them and maybe a few key-words to remember them. Although to fit all the names of a case in a sub-heading it usually is in very minute writing and not a chance anyone else could read it!

Yeah this would have been the way i studied previously, just didn't work for me but everyone is different. I just find that my cases used to get muddled up, i'd have cases referringto round and about the right area but i'd struggle to remember the exact reference it was supposed to make. Sure give it a try on something your next subject maybe try two hours doing first half of chapter using the journey method (gona be weird first time) and second half doing you normal way. Each to their own, i just think this traditional method which we all used in school isn't the most efficient method. I always got told waht to study never really HOW to study.

brian__foley

shaneybaby wrote: »

I just find that my cases used to get muddled up, i'd have cases referringto round and about the right area but i'd struggle to remember the exact reference it was supposed to make.

This may be controversial, but I don't think its anything to do you with you re muddling up cases in the sense that its not really your fault.

I think its just the product of getting to know about cases from manuals - i.e. where all the text is the same, where there is no wider "physical" context to the case. Everything, in a sense, is the same - same font, same size text etc.

On the other hand, if one reads the cases in the reports, each case tends to take on its own little space in your head. You mind remember McGee v Ireland if you read it in Trinity because some eejit went and (with biro) capitalised all the "R's" and "C's" whenever the Court said "roman catholic". You might remember the High Trees case, because of the unusual font in the head note and so on.

I'm not sure its practical to read the cases in their "original" so to speak, but its certainly something that has added to my recollection over the years. One never forgets the older English cases where "f" was used for "s" and you read them with a lisp in your mind, or the Denning contract cases where his English was just incredible. Again...probably impractical, but if you could get a look at some of the "big" cases in their original, I think it helps. They are all (well, most) there in scanned PDF now on justis (assuming you have access via a college).

legal eagle 1

The key to learning off stuff is repetition , the more you look at something the more you'll remember it. What i use do was pin list of cases to back of my door and look at it everytime i passed and try to remember all day what was on that page, same way as if i was in work i'd have one page of information that i would focus on for that day. Every body has a different way of doing it.....none right and none wrong......you just got to find out what works for you!

shaneybaby

brian__foley wrote: »

This may be controversial, but I don't think its anything to do you with you re muddling up cases in the sense that its not really your fault.

I think its just the product of getting to know about cases from manuals - i.e. where all the text is the same, where there is no wider "physical" context to the case. Everything, in a sense, is the same - same font, same size text etc.

On the other hand, if one reads the cases in the reports, each case tends to take on its own little space in your head. You mind remember McGee v Ireland if you read it in Trinity because some eejit went and (with biro) capitalised all the "R's" and "C's" whenever the Court said "roman catholic". You might remember the High Trees case, because of the unusual font in the head note and so on.

I'm not sure its practical to read the cases in their "original" so to speak, but its certainly something that has added to my recollection over the years. One never forgets the older English cases where "f" was used for "s" and you read them with a lisp in your mind, or the Denning contract cases where his English was just incredible. Again...probably impractical, but if you could get a look at some of the "big" cases in their original, I think it helps. They are all (well, most) there in scanned PDF now on justis (assuming you have access via a college).

brings me back ;)When i first started reading law, before i decided on doing the fe1's i used to love reading the old judges decisions. Getting through Discipline of the law at the moment, one of dennings books(not a summer novel;) ) No way would i have the time for the FE 1's, considering my pages are filed with crazy drawings of whatever image i have in my head i suppose its kinda the same thing.

I heard about the RC "amendments" before. There is a 1st edition Origion of the species in UCC with a debate against darwin's claims by a student, the things is worth thousands and some dude scribbled all over it! anyway off topic

Repetition of course is the key, the trick is to get it into a form you can put up and down easily. Key word and the rest in your head. Too much text on a page and everything just gets lost. I don't often post here but wiating on a photocopier to churn up more trees. Interesting discussion people!

shaneybaby

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I love Lord Denning......when i grow up I wanna be a judge like him hehe

While probably not as eloquent our own Judge McMahon (of binchy and mcMahon fame)is brilliant if you ever get the chance to hear him.

sammey

Sineadm wrote: »

hi i am re-sitting the prelim exam in 2010 i failed the previous paoer in general knowledge would anybody have any advice in relation to the general knowledge paper?

Jev/N wrote: »

I doubt anyone here has done it TBH?

And please don't take this the wrong way but if you can't pass that exam on the first try, maybe the FE-1s mightn't be for you

Actually just used the search function and found this:

vote4pedro wrote: »

Without trying to sound sh itty you might wanna have a look at the Fe1 past papers, if you're sitting the prelim exam just as a way of eventually taking the Fe1s. They're seriously, seriously hard exams and would be putting yourself at great financial cost/an awful lot of work for something even the best highest scoring law grads from college are reduced to quivering wrecks over. Maybe there were other reasons why you failed the prelim exam in which case fair enough, but from what I've heard the jump from the prelim exam to the FE1s is absolutely, hugely enormous, so maybe its worth taking a look at the FE1 papers and have a think if you'd really be able to pass 8 of them in quick succession.

if you make the effort to take any exam and are unsuccessful at the first attempt it would be a mistake not to resit it. do not know whether you passed the other two papers but if you did it would be an even bigger mistake not to resit.regardless given the form of the prelim could easily see how one could make the mistake of focusing all their efforts on the other two papers and just showing up on the day for the gen know and getting caught out.

when you have passed the prelim taking one of the online prep courses makes passing the fe-1's a very realistic possibility - about 2k for the first 4 -course fees plus exam fees.

"best highest scoring law grads from college" can see that being upgraded to "the best legal minds in the country" with a few fe-1's passed maybe its the time of the year.

did not answer your specific question but however

brian__foley

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I love Lord Denning......when i grow up I wanna be a judge like him hehe

He could be entertaining and sensible at times, but it's hard to forget some things that should never be forgotten.

When the "Birmingham 6" took a civil action against the Midlands police for assault, (see [1980] 1 QB 283) the Queens Bench heard an application (and dismissed it) to strike the claim out on the basis of issue estoppel. An appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal by the police.

Denning - accurately noting that that if they won, it meant that the "confessions" of Ger Conlon et al obtained were involuntarilty which meant (shock) that they had been framed, he said:-

"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further".

Everytime I see that, I can't ignore the part "If they won...."

He deserves to be judged for all time on this Judgment.

(Fe1 unrelated, but there you go)

2ndtimer

As a Belfast Fe-1 student ( a some what minority) I completely concur with this.

A judgment reflective of all the worst aspects of British imperialism and injustice.

shaneybaby

brian__foley wrote: »

He could be entertaining and sensible at times, but it's hard to forget some things that should never be forgotten.
.....

Everytime I see that, I can't ignore the part "If they won...."

He deserves to be judged for all time on this Judgment.

(Fe1 unrelated, but there you go)

never realised this. looks like i've plenty more reading to do yet!!

sunnyside

Dante09 wrote: »

Ibut I did 40 hours of study a week--10 hours per subject, without a miss until september when I quit the job and did around 70 hours a week.

That's almost twice as many hours as an average person works in a week:(

To the person who posted about the perliminary exam, I don't know anything about it but please don't let negative comments in this thread put you off. Sign up for it again, do more preparation than last time, etc. I can guarantee you that lots of people who have a degree have failed plenty of exams along the way.

2ndtimer

Agreed,

To the person who done the prelim exam and failed, dont get dis-heartened by things you read on here.

I done law at Uni and from my experience there can be alot of arrogant pr**ks, who adore the perceived elitism of their chosen degree.

Plus you gotta remember... you know that person you knew in school..the really smart one? organised their notes like Monica from friends and would be a pure freak out merchant when it comes to exams and doing them???

Well I bet theres loads of them on here...

These forums can be hit and miss. If you want it bad enough you'll make it. I know quite a few high achieving law graduates who have the personality of a goldfish. The Fe-1s are really tough, they are work work work. And yes it is hard to get a job but your persistance and strength of character might set you apart from someone who has sailed through Uni and Fe-1s. Theres a place for everyone eventually with persistance, from small local practice to the big 5.

keep at it!!

Jev/N

2ndtimer wrote: »

Agreed,

To the person who done the prelim exam and failed, dont get dis-heartened by things you read on here.

I done law at Uni and from my experience there can be alot of arrogant pr**ks, who adore the perceived elitism of their chosen degree.

Plus you gotta remember... you know that person you knew in school..the really smart one? organised their notes like Monica from friends and would be a pure freak out merchant when it comes to exams and doing them???

Well I bet theres loads of them on here...

These forums can be hit and miss. If you want it bad enough you'll make it. I know quite a few high achieving law graduates who have the personality of a goldfish. The Fe-1s are really tough, they are work work work. And yes it is hard to get a job but your persistance and strength of character might set you apart from someone who has sailed through Uni and Fe-1s. Theres a place for everyone eventually with persistance, from small local practice to the big 5.

keep at it!!

If this is directed at my comments, amongst others, I was merely offering my own opinion on the situation. I wasn't being negative as I was just stating how hard the FE-1's are in reality and to take all these things into account going forward. Notwithstanding that, I actually found some advice for the poster!

I never understand the reaction from people when someone offers some advice based on their own opinions, just because it doesn't accord with what others think

Certainly it doesn't warrant referring to people (in general even)as arrogant pr1cks or having the personality of a goldfish

2ndtimer

Apologies think you have me crossed up here, if you read what I said again I was pointing out my own experiences at uni.

Im all for people sticking at it, thats all.

nuac

Sunnyside - re your reference earlier today that 40 to 70 hours study is twice the number of hours that the average person works in a week.

If you become a self employed lawyer, you will have to put in long hours. In office again for over 15 hours over weekend to deal with some urgent matters, with a full week coming up.

I know many colleagues solicitors and barristers who have to put in long hours.

So if long hours do not suit you, change to something else before it is too late.

legal eagle 1

If you become a self employed lawyer, you will have to put in long hours. In office again for over 15 hours over weekend to deal with some urgent matters, with a full week coming up.

I know many colleagues solicitors and barristers who have to put in long hours.

So if long hours do not suit you, change to something else before it is too late.

Nuac , I know your a frequent poster on these forums. I'm always intrigued by your comments but,all you ever appear to talk about is the major negatives of the profession and of your job.........why than i ask, are you still in the profession???