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

mydogwentroof

CONTRACT

Can anybody explain the effect of Sections 1 & 2 of the Infant's Relief Act 1874 regarding parties to a contract?!?

nmurphy1441

mydogwentroof wrote: »

CONTRACT

Can anybody explain the effect of Sections 1 & 2 of the Infant's Relief Act 1874 regarding parties to a contract?!?

Think it has to do with when a person has attained the age of majority??? Off the top of my head

iamanengine

Company exam was roooouughhhhh

Heard he’s a nice marker tho might have scrapped a pass

ahhhhhFE1s

iamanengine wrote: »

Company exam was roooouughhhhh

Heard he’s a nice marker tho might have scrapped a pass

What came up ?? Last sitting was grand but sitting before was apparently very tough as well

bobbyness

mydogwentroof wrote: »

CONTRACT

Can anybody explain the effect of Sections 1 & 2 of the Infant's Relief Act 1874 regarding parties to a contract?!?

S1 - Contracts for necessaries - Contracts minors enter into are void, unless:

they can be proven necessary (Chappel v Cooper - Funeral costs a necessary) (Nash v Inmann - Fancy waistcoats not a necessary - Father was able to proof child had adequate clothing and the waistcoats were not a necessary)

S2 - Don't have cases currently, but I believe it's contract entered into by minors incurring debt (Lent money perhaps) can't be collected and enforced once the child reaches majority.

Though I'm not 100% on that.

rightytighty

iamanengine wrote: »

Company exam was roooouughhhhh

Heard he’s a nice marker tho might have scrapped a pass

I was pretty happy with restriction, directors, realisation of assets, and crystallisation but wasn’t familiar with any of the remaining 3

I answered the s31 question and just wrote about the primacy of the constitution in relation to directors dutues and share transfer before I ran out of time.

There’s no evidence of any question like that having appeared before in my sample answers and I haven’t a clue if I’ll get any marks haha fs

Jeremiah25

What did we make of that folks?

ahhhhhFE1s

bobbyness wrote: »

S1 - Contracts for necessaries - Contracts minors enter into are void, unless:

they can be proven necessary (Chappel v Cooper - Funeral costs a necessary) (Nash v Inmann - Fancy waistcoats not a necessary - Father was able to proof child had adequate clothing and the waistcoats were not a necessary)

S2 - Don't have cases currently, but I believe it's contract entered into by minors incurring debt (Lent money perhaps) can't be collected and enforced once the child reaches majority.

Though I'm not 100% on that.

A case for s 2 Marlow v Pitfeild - loans to minors to purchase necessaries are not recoverable at common law – Loans where the minor has already used the money to purchase a necessary may be recoverable.

iamanengine

rightytighty wrote: »

I was pretty happy with restriction, directors, realisation of assets, and crystallisation but wasn’t familiar with any of the remaining 3

I answered the s31 question and just wrote about the primacy of the constitution in relation to directors dutues and share transfer before I ran out of time.

There’s no evidence of any question like that having appeared before in my sample answers and I haven’t a clue if I’ll get any marks haha fs

Q1 I used LTD v DAC notes and talked a little about UV so actually that should be grand
Q2. Actually looking at my notes my restriction answer might have been sound
Q3. Conflicts of interest, my case law was weak here but think I have enough for a pass
Q4. Unfair Prefs, didn't do
Q5. Crystallisation of Floating charges - my worst Q, waffled about fixed v floating and characteristics of floating but I had Re JD Brian and talked a bit about winding up and liquidation so might be alright here
Q6. S.31??????
Q7. Disqualification, struck off register???
Q8. Receivership, absolutely nailed this

On reflection I think I might have actually got the W on this one

Jeremiah25

Onto contract we go...

Predictions anygone? Any topics due a run?

Jenosul

Kellyg248 wrote: »

Send your email and I will forward to you if you like ...

Hi all,

Any predictions for Tort?? Also, I can't get my hands on a tort grid...would appreciate if anyone is willing to share one. Thanks

[/QUOTE]

I did it October think employers liability didn’t come up and was expecting it cause it was due so it might this year. Good luck.

nmurphy1441

Anyone think formal and evidentiary requirements and/or illegal contracts are due a run? Trying to cut down but both haven’t been up in a while now...

Jeremiah25

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Anyone think formal and evidentiary requirements and/or illegal contracts are due a run? Trying to cut down but both haven’t been up in a while now...

Not covering them myself anyway! What topics are you focusing on?

JimmyJazzz

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Anyone think formal and evidentiary requirements and/or illegal contracts are due a run? Trying to cut down but both haven’t been up in a while now...

I've been having this precise dilemma myself. I reckon they're both a risk (insofar as they can be) because as you say they haven't been up in a while. Which though?!

nmurphy1441

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Not covering them myself anyway! What topics are you focusing on?

Topics that seem to come up more or less every year.... Offer/Acceptance/Consideration/Certainty, misrep, terms, consumer protection and remedies would be my big ones.... I’ll throw in mistake, discharge and exclusion clauses then too! Absolutely terrified!!!

nmurphy1441

JimmyJazzz wrote: »

I've been having this precise dilemma myself. I reckon they're both a risk (insofar as they can be) because as you say they haven't been up in a while. Which though?!

I’m just praying both don’t come up!!!!

Racheljen17

Any predictions for EU Law? I know the last sitting was supposed to have been horrible, so im really nervous!

rightytighty

Can anyone at all offer any guidance on the s31 Q in company today? I can’t find anything online even

Jeremiah25

rightytighty wrote: »

Can anyone at all offer any guidance on the s31 Q in company today? I can’t find anything online even

Not a clue. Doubt it was a popular question.

rightytighty

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Not a clue. Doubt it was a popular question.

What was the other weird question, the one about the company getting struck off the register?

Jeremiah25

rightytighty wrote: »

What was the other weird question, the one about the company getting struck off the register?

Yeah that was another weird one. Managed to avoid both thankfully!

JCormac

Racheljen17 wrote: »

Any predictions for EU Law? I know the last sitting was supposed to have been horrible, so im really nervous!

I second this 1000%

Lawofattracti

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Not a clue. Doubt it was a popular question.

Didn't sit the exam this time but this is what I have from last time in my notes!

'section 31 of the 2014 act provides that the constitution is to bind the company and members as if they had entered into a contract

with regard to DACs - section 31 will operate as it always has - to make articles and memo binding as between company and shareholders.

An example of the articles being enforced as between the company and its shareholders is Hickman v Kent Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders where a shareholder brought proceedings against the company - under the articles it stated that if such a dispute arose, it must be first submitted to arbitration. Company invoked - Astbury J found that the articles do create rights and obligations

An example of s31 being invoked to enforce rights as between shareholders - Lee and Company v Egan: articles contained preemption clauses

Must be remembered - the rights and duties which can be enforced by or against the members are those conferred or imposed upon them in their capacity as members

Rights and duties conferred in some other capacity - eg as director - cannot be enforced. - Elley v Positive Government

Browne v La Trinidad - Director could not rely on the articles of association to secure his tenure as a director

Although the articles cannot constitute a contract in respect of such ‘outsider rights’ the relevant clauses can be deemed incorporated into some other contract. This is sometimes referred to as a special contract
Bailey v New SOuth Wales Medical Defence Union: as a member you can enter into contracts with the company that are additional to statutory contract you have already made with it by becoming a member
also where there is a special contract that is based on company articles - it won’t unilaterally vary even if there is an alteration. facts: Bailey took out cover - company's constitution provided cover would be given. Alterations were made that gave them discretion to refuse comer. Inferred a special contract on the terms of the original constitution'

CiaranS93

Tort

Vicarious liability

Can anyone give me a quick summary of Cox v Minster for Justice and Hickey v McGowan?

Sineaddh

CONTRACT

running out of time here, would i be better off doing discharge, capacity or terms??

Lawofattracti

Sineaddh wrote: »

CONTRACT

running out of time here, would i be better off doing discharge, capacity or terms??

Either discharge or terms

law_struggles

Contract

Discharge

What type of questions are asked for discharge and what are the main cases? Thank you

Jeremiah25

Are we covering estoppel for contract?

iamanengine

rightytighty wrote: »

Can anyone at all offer any guidance on the s31 Q in company today? I can’t find anything online even

I’d imagine the fact that probably almost no one did it will lie in your favour in terms of picking up marks

iamanengine

What are people doing for EU? Haven’t looked at it in well over a week