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

Tony_TwoLegs

Realised I don't have the March 2017 paper for Constitutional.
Looking for topics (and whether PQ/ Essay).
I will return the favour :0)
i.e. Qs regarding Equity, Company, Criminal, Property.....

Paleblood

How effective would a nutshell be for tort? Go in with a level of knowledge on every subject and leave yourself in a position to answer 4 problem question and take a whack at an essay? It's my fourth subject and I only have time to really get beneath the skin of three of them. Could it be done or am I daydreaming?

smugairleroin

Hi - I was just wondering how long roughly answers should be/how many points should be discussed? I'm looking at the sample answers from Griffith College, and they seem much longer and more detailed compared to anything I wrote in undergrad exams.

Paleblood

smugairleroin wrote: »

Hi - I was just wondering how long roughly answers should be/how many points should be discussed? I'm looking at the sample answers from Griffith College, and they seem much longer and more detailed compared to anything I wrote in undergrad exams.

The sample answers provided by the different colleges are essentially for study and research purpose. They're very, very detailed. Some of the answers on my prep course were comprised of whole paragraphs lifted straight from the manual! You will simply not have enough time to write that much and you'd need to be a savant to remember that much case law for every topic.

One of my lecturers provided us with her actual answers to some of the questions. They were only a third the size of the regular 'sample answers' and much less detailed. They were still excellent answers, but they were much closer to what I'd be capable of producing i an exam, which is hugely encouraging.

Use the sample answers to help you revise the topics and give you an idea of what way to tackle a question, but certainly don't compare yourself to them in every respect. That's not the idea.

Robbie25808

Question for EU law.

I understand that Directives do not have horizontal direct effect. Does this mean that private parties cannot rely on the directive if it has not been implemented in the Member State?
However, if the time frame has passed for it to be implemented, can they rely on it then?

smugairleroin

Paleblood wrote: »

The sample answers provided by the different colleges are essentially for study and research purpose. They're very, very detailed. Some of the answers on my prep course were comprised of whole paragraphs lifted straight from the manual! You will simply not have enough time to write that much and you'd need to be a savant to remember that much case law for every topic.

One of my lecturers provided us with her actual answers to some of the questions. They were only a third the size of the regular 'sample answers' and much less detailed. They were still excellent answers, but they were much closer to what I'd be capable of producing i an exam, which is hugely encouraging.

Use the sample answers to help you revise the topics and give you an idea of what way to tackle a question, but certainly don't compare yourself to them in every respect. That's not the idea.

Thanks for that, no way I could write (or remember!) so much per question

nmwcc

Does anyone know the pass rate for either;

Tort
Contract
Equity

??

Would be great to know..

yournerd

nmwcc wrote: »

Does anyone know the pass rate for either;

Tort
Contract
Equity

??

Would be great to know..

I read a report from a years ago back and one had 40%

MomTuR

yournerd wrote: »

I read a report from a years ago back and one had 40%

Which report?

nmwcc

yournerd wrote: »

I read a report from a years ago back and one had 40%

Oh christ. is that for Tort?

nmwcc

In regards to secret trusts, in Re Keen (1937), does anyone have an idea whether the testator handing the trustees a sealed letter prior to executing his will was sufficient communication to create a secret trust? A little confused by the decision

The Talking Bread

nmwcc wrote: »

In regards to secret trusts, in Re Keen (1937), does anyone have an idea whether the testator handing the trustees a sealed letter prior to executing his will was sufficient communication to create a secret trust? A little confused by the decision

Here is the best breakdown I found on it,

the issue there was whether valid communication had taken place during the testator’s lifetime by a trustee being in possession of an envelope sealed by the testator which contained details of the terms of the trust.

The facts concerned the will of Harry Keen. He wrote his will in 1932, leaving £10,000 on trust to his trustees, on terms which were to be notified by him to his trustees during his lifetime.

No mention of the beneficiary’s details were contained in the will. Mr Keen, however, had written a separate memorandum, in which he had set out the details of the beneficiary — a lady whom he knew.

He handed the memorandum, which was in a sealed envelope, to one of his trustees. The trustee only opened the envelope after Mr Keen’s death. The issue for the court was whether Mr Keen had successfully created a valid secret trust. (well half-secret)

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal held that there was no valid secret trust, but they both gave different reasons.

In the High Court, Farwell J held that Mr Keen had failed to notify the trustees of the intended beneficiary of the trust during his lifetime, as he had promised to do in the clause in his will.
Leaving a note which was read only after his death did not constitute notifying the trustees of the beneficiary during his lifetime. No trust of the money could be established. As the trust failed, the money had to fall into Mr Keen’s residuary estate.

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Wright MR thought that Farwell J’s view of Mr Keen’s failure to notify the trustees of the intended beneficiary during his lifetime took a far too narrow view of what ‘notifying’ meant. He said that by holding the beneficiary’s details in a sealed envelope, the trustees had the ‘means of knowledge available [to administer the trust] when it became necessary and proper to open the envelope’.9

SHIP ANALOGY
He gave a vivid example for which his judgment is famous: ‘[t]o take a parallel, a ship which sails under sealed orders, is sailing under orders though the exact terms are not ascertained by the captain till later.’
It could not be disputed that the ship sailing under sealed orders had been validly despatched and, in the same manner, the trust could still be successfully administered by the trustee when the time came to do so.


But Mr Keen’s trust still failed.
The primary reason was that while he had ‘notified’ the trustee of his chosen beneficiary, the means of his notification contravened s 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The notification by Mr Keen was not correctly drafted according to the requirements of s 9 and neither was it witnessed. He had merely left a letter which, whilst signed by him, had not been witnessed. Mr Keen was not at liberty effectively to reserve to himself a power to circumvent the requirements of s 9, which his letter did. (so basically, an administrative error, not really an error of communication, as such)

In addition, any trust which Mr Keen sought to declare had to be consistent with the actual clause in his will in which he promised to declare the trusts.
The clause in his will spoke about a notification that he proposed to give to the trustees in the future. In fact, he had prepared the letter well before he had written his will. The details of the beneficiary in the letter, therefore, were not consistent with what he had described in his will.

Communication of the terms of the trust to the trustees can occur either before or after the will is written, but they must be consistent with the precise wording of the will.















Yeah, takes a few readings to be fully informed but, not overly confusing thereafter

Here is a link to the full article, quite nice breakdown

https://lawexplores.com/secret-trusts-half-secret-trusts-and-mutual-wills/

AislingB92

Anyone have sample answers for March 2017 papers for EU or Constitutional? Would appreciate it!!

starbar91

Any legend have predictions for:

1. Contract?
2. Company?

yournerd

starbar91 wrote: »

Any legend have predictions for:

1. Contract?
2. Company?

Would love this too:pac:

claiomh solais

My last exam is contract, so if people have any must-have tips I'm all ears!!

SM1803

For company I'm doing:

Directors
Corporate borrowing
Realization of company assets
Seperate legal personality
Share transfer
Winding up
Receivers
Examinership
Corporate authority
Restriction

Is there anything missing from that list that I should add/am I leaving out too much?

yournerd

SM1803 wrote: »

For company I'm doing:

Directors
Corporate borrowing
Realization of company assets
Seperate legal personality
Share transfer
Winding up
Receivers
Examinership
Corporate authority
Restriction

Is there anything missing from that list that I should add/am I leaving out too much?

I think the main one youre leaving out is shareholder protection but I dont think that will come up this year!
I'm doing the same as you as well as 5 reforms essay!

SM1803

yournerd wrote: »

I think the main one youre leaving out is shareholder protection but I dont think that will come up this year!
I'm doing the same as you as well as 5 reforms essay!

Oh I actually have done that. Well I've done 212 probably won't cover Foss v Harbottle cause it was on the last one. Im going to have 5 reforms maybe just incase but not really sure how to structure it? I haven't done shares but it doesn't seem to come up often

veronymus

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Look at Gormley and White etc

They must wait a REASONABLE time before questioning you I think. Can't interrogate you once you request one.
CAN take samples though.
Also law changed regarding right to solicitor being present in questioning.

Just a note of caution, be careful if including this, it is only a Code of practice so not strictly a legal right.

The courts in January of this year in DPP v Doyle [2017] categorically stated that the right to have a solicitor present during questioning is not (yet) a constitutional one, although several members of the court indicated that they would be willing to infer such a right in the near future and in an appropriate case.

bluntspoon

Does anyone have the Examiner's Report for the March 2017 EU exam?

I have up-to-date grids for Company, Contract and EU if anyone is looking for them.

SM1803

Does anyone have a sample answer for the question that has come up on separate legal personality and holding and subsidiaries?

joedubs

does anyone have any information about the march 2017 con law / tort paper? even an up to date exam grid would be much appreciated!

Dsalmon91

Does anyone know how much a copy of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 costs from the OPW. Thanks

Robbie25808

yournerd wrote: »

I read a report from a years ago back and one had 40%

I highly doubt that is the pass rate. I read that EU is 70% so i doubt that the others are that much lower.

Robbie25808

Company Law:

For the chapter on Liquidation, do they only really ask you a question on the winding up for inability to pay debt and where it is just and equitable to do so?
I know that one paper asked a different question but that was a random enough question.

Robbo

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Company Law:

For the chapter on Liquidation, do they only really ask you a question on the winding up for inability to pay debt and where it is just and equitable to do so?
I know that one paper asked a different question but that was a random enough question.

Voluntary windups are usually quite straightforward so there isn't much case law on which to base a question.

Pamela0506

Hi, would anybody be able to help me with question 7 on the 2015 equity paper:

Write a note on two of the following:

(A) the exceptional categories in which non-charitable purpose trusts may be enforced.

I'm not sure what the examiner is looking for here, if anyone could let me know how they would go about answering it that would be great!

Paleblood

Robbie25808 wrote: »

I highly doubt that is the pass rate. I read that EU is 70% so i doubt that the others are that much lower.

Even if it was 40% I wouldn't read too much into it. With these exams you've got quite a wide demographic compared to undergrad exams. You'll have people fresh from their law degrees alongside people that never studied law before. You'll have people that have been studying full time for the past few months alongside people like myself, who have a 60 hour week with work/commute. You'll have people who really want to pursue this career alongside people whose parents want them to pursue it. Pass rates might be indicative of something in college where there's at least some sort of parity between students, but not with the FE1s. They're difficult, that's all you need to worry about.

Paleblood

Pamela0506 wrote: »

Hi, would anybody be able to help me with question 7 on the 2015 equity paper:

Write a note on two of the following:

(A) the exceptional categories in which non-charitable purpose trusts may be enforced.

I'm not sure what the examiner is looking for here, if anyone could let me know how they would go about answering it that would be great!

My understanding of the general rule is that non-charitable purpose trusts will fail because, unlike charitable trusts, they do not have human objects.

However there are exceptions to that rule. In my manual the exceptional categories are trusts for:

(1) the erection or maintenance of monuments or graves;
(2) for the maintenance of particular animals;
(3) for saying masses, and;
(4) for unincorporated associations.


It's a note question, and like most note questions it's a 'tell me all you know question', so it's pretty straight forward.

So in preparing that essay, or in just generally preparing that chapter, I'd be looking to define what a general purpose trust is, contrast it with a charitable trust, lay out the general rule, then look at each category to explore the rationale behind that particular exception, then support with case law.