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

jewels652

Maybe they are punishing us for complaining about it last October avén starting a new thread on boards ( challenge the rules) 😂

JCormac

bigtophat13 wrote: »

What would we do if it was looking for reform or the likes? Leigh v Jack maybe? More clarity for squatters over leasehold?

To be honest, I haven't spent any time looking at how I'd answer it as an Essay Q, probably to my detriment though.

I guess I'd possibly talk about the Leigh & Co vs Durack & Co situation, mentioning that since Feeney/ Feehy (?) the position is more towards the Durack standard, which is less complicated?

I'd mention Pye as well


I guess the short answer is I've no idea actually

kasey0123

laurar2019 wrote: »

what did people say for the 238 & 239 q like how much were you able to write??

and in the last q was a fraudulant and b unfair??

I had nothing to really write or explain literally just what’s in the act... 238 was a sale of the mountain and they would need ordinary resolutions in both companies to pass it... 239 prohibited a lease because it’s a credit transaction so the only way they could have gotten it approved was by way of SAP.. and mentioned 220 connected person

There was i think 2 cases in my manual. Forgot both... there really wasn’t much to say because he specified ONLY 238 and 238 so I assumed he was sending a clear message I don’t want you to talk about conflicts of interest.. he probably would have said 231 if so.

Daly29

Sigh was thinking after Tort this would be OK. I did a balanced correction of my exams and think there is enough there for someone to give a pass.

I got a bit creative with 238 and 239. You can pass a resolution for 238. Every seemed on board. 239 I just said get a SAP. Avoid litigation. Ha, for sure not what he was looking for but think that should get some marks.

Yep I went for that on fraud/unfair.

If you are going to take away a gimme question don't make the majority of the paper tricky.

Wish there could be a report on the papers, especially Tort. A gradual rising of the bar OK, a complete divergence from previous years is not very fair. People put so many hours into them, can at least expect fair exams.

laurar2019 wrote: »

what did people say for the 238 & 239 q like how much were you able to write??

and in the last q was a fraudulant and b unfair??

Daly29

Sounds like you hit the right points. I thought it was odd as well highlighting just those two because 231 clearly should play a part. Strange one to give as a full question. Came up in part before.

kasey0123 wrote: »

I had nothing to really write or explain literally just what’s in the act... 238 was a sale of the mountain and they would need ordinary resolutions in both companies to pass it... 239 prohibited a lease because it’s a credit transaction so the only way they could have gotten it approved was by way of SAP.. and mentioned 220 connected person

There was i think 2 cases in my manual. Forgot both... there really wasn’t much to say because he specified ONLY 238 and 238 so I assumed he was sending a clear message I don’t want you to talk about conflicts of interest.. he probably would have said 231 if so.

kasey0123

Daly29 wrote: »

Sounds like you hit the right points. I thought it was odd as well highlighting just those two because 231 clearly should play a part. Strange one to give as a full question. Came up in part before.

Yeah only for I saw a similar Q before 231 I defintely would have went off on a tangent on that but he really must not have wanted it.. something fishy going on this set

laurar2019

i mentioned 231 in the conclusion just to round it up... think he'll dock mark for that since its not in the q?

Legal_Eagle_95

Right so anyone think it's possible to pass on 3 decent qs and two very dodgy ones haha? Actually feel so baffled by that company exam - no normal director duties, restrictions, shareholder protection, share transfer, SLP...just don't understand it are they trying to make us fail?

kasey0123

laurar2019 wrote: »

i mentioned 231 in the conclusion just to round it up... think he'll dock mark for that since its not in the q?

Ah no definitely not! I would have done the same only for I saw a previous one that included it... tbh I say he just put up minimal stuff because he probably doesn’t wanna spend hours correcting when he has a real job HAha 😂😂😂😂

Gunslinger92

Just remembered I threw in a sixth question, did half a page on the 238 & 239 one... will I get negatively marked for that does anyone know?

laurar2019

how long were your answers for 239 & 239? mine was barely 3 pages

laurar2019

kasey0123 wrote: »

Ah no definitely not! I would have done the same only for I saw a previous one that included it... tbh I say he just put up minimal stuff because he probably doesn’t wanna spend hours correcting when he has a real job HAha ��������

hopefullyyyy

Vegetarian2017

jewels652 wrote:

Maybe they are punishing us for complaining about it last October avén starting a new thread on boards ( challenge the rules) 😂

I was thinking the same!!! ffs😂😂😂

Gunslinger92

Legal_Eagle_95 wrote: »

Right so anyone think it's possible to pass on 3 decent qs and two very dodgy ones haha? Actually feel so baffled by that company exam - no normal director duties, restrictions, shareholder protection, share transfer, SLP...just don't understand it are they trying to make us fail?

yup you could definitely pass with that I reckon.

I talked about SLP a bit in the problem question with Sean on consequences of incorporation...

lawless11

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Just remembered I threw in a sixth question, did half a page on the 238 & 239 one... will I get negatively marked for that does anyone know?

I don't know but I'll assume that probably the last question on your script won't be read.

Supermax1988

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Just remembered I threw in a sixth question, did half a page on the 238 & 239 one... will I get negatively marked for that does anyone know?

No not at all. He'll just mark your best 5.

kasey0123

laurar2019 wrote: »

how long were your answers for 239 & 239? mine was barely 3 pages

Same ... i’m not too worried for that really because there actually wasn’t anything to say.. he probably thinks he was nice with that Q because it was in the act haha.. I’ve seen him say before how it’s surprising students didn’t attempt questions which are based on the legislation.. so who knows!

Gunslinger92

lawless11 wrote: »

I don't know but I'll assume that probably the last question on your script won't be read.

That would be fine by me I don't know why I did it :pac:

Supermax1988 wrote: »

No not at all. He'll just mark your best 5.

Lovely, thanks!

Legal_Eagle_95

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

yup you could definitely pass with that I reckon.

I talked about SLP a bit in the problem question with Sean on consequences of incorporation...

I could do the crystallisation, winding up by creditors and unfair preference ones but oh my god I waffled about UV from what I knew about the changes under the Companies Act and just where it had cropped up in other sections and then made a total MESS of the S238 and S239 - had not looked at it!

Gunslinger92

Legal_Eagle_95 wrote: »

I could do the crystallisation, winding up by creditors and unfair preference ones but oh my god I waffled about UV from what I knew about the changes under the Companies Act and just where it had cropped up in other sections and then made a total MESS of the S238 and S239 - had not looked at it!

You'd be surprised.. I reckon you passed!

Yeah my UV answer was crap, just said that LTDs don't have an objects clause and DACs do, but that 90% of Irish companies are LTDs so I still think the UV doctrine isn't of major importance.. hopefully will get a few attempt marks :pac:

xBell123

On the UV question I talked about the development of the case law independent objects clauses etc then suddenly thought they’re not relevant to assessing changes to the doctrine under the act are they!

sbbyrne

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Just remembered I threw in a sixth question, did half a page on the 238 & 239 one... will I get negatively marked for that does anyone know?

No you definitely won't get docked. I''m pretty sure they're required to mark everything thats on the paper. So even if you got 4 marks for it, if its more marks than another question then that's the one they'll take into consideration.

iamanengine

I'm getting ahead of myself, but when do results come out?

Daly29

November 30th I think for Octiber so guess it'll be April 30th.

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm getting ahead of myself, but when do results come out?

LawGirl3434

For diminished responsibility, do you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities before rebutted to prosecution to disprove beyond all reasonable doubt?

sbbyrne

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm getting ahead of myself, but when do results come out?

Yeah its usually 6 weeks from the last Friday of the exam/last exam.

Daly29

Definitely not. Think it makes a more rounded answer. He might not give you an extra mark but certainly won't deduct.

laurar2019 wrote: »

i mentioned 231 in the conclusion just to round it up... think he'll dock mark for that since its not in the q?

lawless11

sbbyrne wrote: »

Yeah its usually 6 weeks from the last Friday of the exam/last exam.

Last sitting it was 7 weeks after the last Friday for some reason. So either 3rd of May or the week after I reckon.

sapphire309

laurar2019 wrote: »

how long were your answers for 239 & 239? mine was barely 3 pages

I wrote about a page and a half. I basically just wrote out the 2 provisions from the act into my booklet will be lucky to get any marks in that particular Q

iamanengine

Defences: Provocation, Insanity, Automatism, Intoxication, Lawful use of Force

Is this enough? They seem to be the big ones