FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

LawBoy2018

Would anyone have any sample answers for Criminal Law? I have plenty of stuff to swap for all subjects.

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I really hope not

Anyone who answered it care to share?

Dunno, didn't do that one. If you saw a panicked person 10min in the exam coming in that was me (y). Hatred to buses was never as fierce as today. Beautiful start to the exams.

I am very mixed, it was an easy enough paper (like doable), but with all my rushing I blanked on case law for book keeping and wrongly answered the part on receiver's duties for guarantors. I'd say I have half of what was asked in 4 questions and the 8 was my best one. I so hoped I managed a tight pass.

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

For the test laid down in Hon Kong Firms for determining if a term is a condition or warranty, could anyone explain in simple English?

"The test whether an event has this effect or not is: does the occurrence of the event deprive the party who has further undertaking still to perform of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract that he should obtain as the consideration for performing those undertakings."

Yea that one took a couple of readings. Basically there are conditions , warranties and then the things that are broad terms like seaworthiness in that case that can be breached in a variety of ways. Where the boat was missing a nail it wouldn't be a breach to the degree of a condition releasing them, technically it wouldn't be "seaworthy" but it would only be a warranty. But at the same time it could be not "seaworthy" because it has a gaping hole in the hull and in that case they would treat it like a breach of condition as the other party would lose the benefit of the contract. You can sail it minus a nail but not with a gaping hole !

yournerd

iamanengine wrote: »

For the test laid down in Hon Kong Firms for determining if a term is a condition or warranty, could anyone explain in simple English?

"The test whether an event has this effect or not is: does the occurrence of the event deprive the party who has further undertaking still to perform of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract that he should obtain as the consideration for performing those undertakings."

It means whether the term goes to the root of the contract or whether there was a total failure of consideration and thus unenforceable. (I think)

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Dunno, didn't do that one. If you saw a panicked person 10min in the exam coming in that was me (y). Hatred to buses was never as fierce as today. Beautiful start to the exams.

I am very mixed, it was an easy enough paper (like doable), but with all my rushing I blanked on case law for book keeping and wrongly answered the part on receiver's duties for guarantors. I'd say I have half of what was asked in 4 questions and the 8 was my best one. I so hoped I managed a tight pass.

Haha seems you weren't in my hall but that is awful I found it awful, I had 80 cases for liquidation and directors duties each and couldn't use any of it so I ended up with that distribution question where all I did was put in some statute 4 or 5 cases then throw some directors at him just for the laugh. How did you answer receivers duties wrong?

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Haha seems you weren't in my hall but that is awful I found it awful, I had 80 cases for liquidation and directors duties each and couldn't use any of it so I ended up with that distribution question where all I did was put in some statute 4 or 5 cases then throw some directors at him just for the laugh. How did you answer receivers duties wrong?

I basically forgot that the duty was owed (and the two cases i had in my notes) so said i didn't see "guarantors" in the Act so probably not owed.... :pac: *facepalm*

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

I basically forgot that the duty was owed (and the two cases i had in my notes) so said i didn't see "guarantors" in the Act so probably not owed.... :pac: *facepalm*

Well as long as you said that the priority is the chargeholder at least you're showing you know the main stuff, that's surely a pass mark?

It's in the act and you didn't see it or its not in the act and only common law cause that's what I thought 🙈 re the guarantors that is

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Well as long as you said that the priority is the chargeholder at least you're showing you know the main stuff, that's surely a pass mark?

It's in the act and you didn't see it or its not in the act and only common law cause that's what I thought �� re the guarantors that is

Yeah like I developed on the duty to obtain the best price possible and introduced that the receiver needed to realise the asset etc because otherwise he can be personally liable....
So it's apparently not in the Act, it's a common law duty yes as you said just there - seemingly approved in an Irish case, from an English case. At least that's what I have in the notes.
Okay aha. Enough for me to think about it! I'll just pray now :pac:...

TemptationWaits

Disastrous company law exam :(:( fudged an answer for the problem question on winding up / reckless & fraudulent trading to somehow make it about SLP. thoughts n prayers appreciated xxx

jewels652

Contract question
Section 14 of the sale of goods act is 1893 only applies to business to business dealings it does not apply to business to consumers contract?

If it only applies to B2B then is there an equivalent for consumers?

Thanks

bigtophat13

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Disastrous company law exam :(:( fudged an answer for the problem question on winding up / reckless & fraudulent trading to somehow make it about SLP. thoughts n prayers appreciated xxx

You have my sympathy and my empathy, I'm still looking for anyone who did Q6 to tell me what you were meant to do for it, some one said SAP and I didn't mention that in the slightest and I'm thinking that maybe I should have

david_etc

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Disastrous company law exam :(:( fudged an answer for the problem question on winding up / reckless & fraudulent trading to somehow make it about SLP. thoughts n prayers appreciated xxx

`
I did the same for that question - it was sort of relevant!

lawless11

david_etc wrote: »

`
I did the same for that question - it was sort of relevant!

Interesting, didn't put SLP related things at all... :x

david_etc

lawless11 wrote: »

Interesting, didn't put SLP related things at all... :x

I wouldn't worry, I think SLP was more of a last refuge of the scoundrels sort of thing.

bigtophat13

Any takers on 6? anyone?

lawdedaw

Bit shook at the company paper, three okay-good questions. Fudged the Foss question because I only discussed derivative action at length and missed the need to discuss in relation tor errant directors. My restriction was very wishy washy too - what exactly is the minimum standard you would need to pass a question? really worried for contract and equity now

Natalie_06

I have 30 chapters in my constitutional manual. htf are we meant to learn everything?

TCPIP

Pull half of them out and hope for the best.

bigtophat13

lawdedaw wrote: »

Bit shook at the company paper, three okay-good questions. Fudged the Foss question because I only discussed derivative action at length and missed the need to discuss in relation tor errant directors. My restriction was very wishy washy too - what exactly is the minimum standard you would need to pass a question? really worried for contract and equity now

It's my first set so I've no idea but I want to know this too, I had 3 good questions, 1 mediocre where my theory for retention of title was alright but I mixed up some cases and floating was good and then a cluster**** of a last question. If I got 3 12s and a 10 then I was thinking I only need an attempt mark 4 in the last.

starfishxxo

I'd be so grateful if anyone has EU or Equity grids or predictions they would be willing to share?��������

Thanks��

iamanengine

Just spotted in the examiner's report they mention Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd and Law Society of Ireland v MIBI in relation to construction of contractual terms. Would anyone have a brief synopsis of either?

Insta92

bigtophat13 wrote: »

It's my first set so I've no idea but I want to know this too, I had 3 good questions, 1 mediocre where my theory for retention of title was alright but I mixed up some cases and floating was good and then a cluster**** of a last question. If I got 3 12s and a 10 then I was thinking I only need an attempt mark 4 in the last.

I feel the same about the paper. Had three good questions in Receivership, Restriction and ROT and fixed charges on book debts.

Was forced to attempt Q1 essay question on the other parties directors owe duties to which was thrown together. Then attempted the question on failure to keep proper books of account/reckless fraudulent trading which I wasn’t prepared for. Not optimistic.

leavingcert17

Contract In contractual terms.. is it enough to cover distinguishing between representations and terms, and implied terms?

bigtophat13

Insta92 wrote: »

I feel the same about the paper. Had three good questions in Receivership, Restriction and ROT and fixed charges on book debts.

Was forced to attempt Q1 essay question on the other parties directors owe duties to which was thrown together. Then attempted the question on failure to keep proper books of account/reckless fraudulent trading which I wasn’t prepared for. Not optimistic.

Yeah I just checked and that question I attempted was completely in relation to SAP which I had info for, I just didn't realise that's what he was asking so I told him all about how it's not possible to make a distribution when not available and how he would be in trouble, so yeah I imagine I failed completely.

lawdedaw

Insta92 wrote: »

I feel the same about the paper. Had three good questions in Receivership, Restriction and ROT and fixed charges on book debts.

Was forced to attempt Q1 essay question on the other parties directors owe duties to which was thrown together. Then attempted the question on failure to keep proper books of account/reckless fraudulent trading which I wasn’t prepared for. Not optimistic.

not feeling good about my restriction question - panicked when I realised that honestly and responsibly wasn't the only defence so I got very skeptical of the question and tried to discuss at the end why that one developed over the other too.....think I may have shot myself in the foot haha

TCPIP

I'm genuinely sorry for you but I'm delighted for myself. It literally might be enough to get me what I need to pass that paper assuming I didn't **** up the rest as bad as I think I did.

TCPIP

lawdedaw wrote: »

not feeling good about my restriction question - panicked when I realised that honestly and responsibly wasn't the only defence so I got very skeptical of the question and tried to discuss at the end why that one developed over the other too.....think I may have shot myself in the foot haha

But that was the only one he asked about?

yournerd

If anyone needs grids or papers or answers send me the subject and your email!

bigtophat13

TCPIP wrote: »

I'm genuinely sorry for you but I'm delighted for myself. It literally might be enough to get me what I need to pass that paper assuming I didn't **** up the rest as bad as I think I did.

Absolutely understandable, did you put anything on the distribution not being out of realised profits or the fact they would have to return it if they got in knowingly at all? Or anything directors into it? Or just pure SAP

Vegetarian2017

Contract
Leaving out
privity
Formalities
Exclusions they came up as essay and problem last sitting
Was going to leave illegal and void but think they'll come up
Anyone esle doing same?