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

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Yeah I have something similar but leaving out courts.

What do you mean by classifications/characteristics?

Classification is Minor/Non-Minor, Summary, Indictable etc
Characteristics is the 5 characteristics of crime, as opposed to civil wrongs, laid down in Melling

They are usually chapter 1 in the manuals I think. They are really handy because you can cram them in a good 15 mins each.

Unfortunately classification came up last sitting and characteristics came up the sitting before so I think they are both unlikely this time

It’s my first sitting and usually I’m fine in exams but have been finding the volume of information for these insane. I usually am happy enough if I can recite my topics well and can recall, but it’s soooo hard to recall everything for these, and it’s just never going to happen!

TillyG wrote: »

Does anyone have the topics that were on the Property paper?

This is off the top of my head

Q1. Was a general reform Q, something like assess if LCLRA has been successful or achieved its aims
Q2. Mortgages
Q3. Adverse Possession
Q4. Part a - Commorientes. Part b - S.117
Q5. Part a - Construction of Wills. Part b - Intestacy
Q6. Residential Tenancies Act
Q7. Easements
Q8. Co-Ownership

illy.m wrote: »

Contract -
I am currently looking at Q1 March 2019 paper.
When the question refers to someone offering something for free and the person accepts and then promises to pay. Is this counter offer? Or for a valid offer there must be consideration? I got caught up by that part of Q1 the last time. Can somepne please explain.

It's the rule against past consideration

Contract - can anyone recall the exam question which related to some artist (I think it was a band and she then left) not performing their duties - what topic does it relate to?

Also, the question where hotel price goes up due to some event in town. What topic is that?

Thank you!!!!

If anyone has an up to date contract grid that would make my life much easier. Would really appreciate it.

Does anyone know where I could get some contract legislation Monday? OPW have been a disaster, ordered two weeks ago and nothing, not very helpful either

Olliepollie wrote: »

EU Law:

In terms of direct effect how essential are the cases of Crotty and Pringle?

I've done the entire chapter and I just cant bring myself to do the last few pages where it talks about Crotty and Pringle.

Are they absolutely essential in answering a direct effect question?

This might be a stupid question but my brain is fried so please be kind haha

Sitting EU for the first time on Thursday so do get a second opinion but I think you'd be fine to leave them out. The problem Qs on direct effect don't require them at all, I think they'd be a separate essay/note Q if they came up.

GlobalSun wrote: »

Hi all,

So, I'm once again contemplating sitting the exam in March. For those who studied law in college & sat the exam, do you think you performance in college on each of these subjects is an accurate representation of your performance on the FE1?

For instance, if you had an A+ in Company Law in college, did you feel as your performance on the FE1 exam was fairly similar?

I'm asking because I would like to make sure I'm splitting the subjects appropriately.

EU, Equity & Tort were by far the subjects I hated the most, so I will make sure not to take all of them together in one setting.

Having gotten a high mark in a subject in college is a great base to have, because obviously you understand it.

FE1s are so different to college exams though and the marks are harder to come by. Our lecturer described them as a mile wide and an inch deep. You need to know a good bit about pretty much everything, so although college results are good in determining what you like and understand, its not completely comparable to FE1 knowledge. That's what i found anyway, others may have a different opinion

illy.m wrote: »

Contract - can anyone recall the exam question which related to some artist (I think it was a band and she then left) not performing their duties - what topic does it relate to?

Also, the question where hotel price goes up due to some event in town. What topic is that?

Thank you!!!!

If anyone has an up to date contract grid that would make my life much easier. Would really appreciate it.

The first one is Misrepresentation; failure to make disclosure in the utmost good faith - Spice Girls Limited v April World. In this case failure to disclose that the member was leaving ahead of a sponsorship period was held to be an actionable representation.

Second one is frustration (I think?), either Krell v Henry (the coronation case) or Taylor v Caldwell (1864). In neither of these the price goes up though; the function of the room fails because the event the room is being rented for fails to occur, meaning the doctrine of frustration comes into play.

iamanengine wrote: »

Here's to hoping the entire Criminal law course can be crammed in one day!!

Haha at least I’m not the only one. Praying for a nice paper tomorrow

JCormac wrote: »

EU

Just after looking at the notes on Citizenship I have for the first time and the whole area of Student Grants along with Equal Treatment is completely AWOL.

Would be eternally grateful if someone had notes on the area.

Totally willing to swap what I have, or my firstborn child!

Not sure if you got sorted but will below is what I have from my notes...

Right to Equal Treatment for EU Citizens:
• Art.24 Directive 2004/38 states that EU citizens with a right of residence have a right to equal treatment with all nationals of that MS.
• Art.18 TFEU creates a general prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality.
• However - Art.24(2) Directive allows MS to refuse social assistance during the first three months of residence & states MS are not obliged prior to permanent residence to provide student grants/loan unless person is a worker (economically active).
• Reaffirmed in Garcia-Nieto and Ors [2016] that there’s no requirement on a MS to offer social assistance to economically inactive EU citizens from social assistance during the first 3 months
• Bickel and Franz - German and Austrian were on trial in Italy. Italian law permitted German speakers in this region to have judicial matters dealt with in German. In light of the right to free movement and treatment, the two men should have been entitled to the same treatment, no less favourable. This is despite criminal legislation being a MS competency .
• Huber v Germany - German government maintained a database of information on resident non-German EU citizens, which it claimed was necessary for crime fighting, but didn’t maintain the same on German citizens. Held to amount to a breach of Art.18. TFEU.

Entitlement to study finance for EU migrant worker
• Article 166 (1) TFEU- vocational training policy
• By virtue of Article 7(3) of Regulation 492/2011 EU migrant workers are entitled to access to training in vocational schools and retraining centres under the same conditions as national workers

Enrolment Fee
• Forcheri Case –Italian spouse of a migrant worker was entitled to not pay enrolment fees- the same as nationals
• Gravier v City of Liege – any form of education which prepares for a qualification for a particular trade, employment or profession and provides the necessary skills, whatever the age or level of the students
• Blaizot v University of Liege – in general university course can be considered to be vocational training- preparatory
Grants
• Forster, here German woman in Netherlands was denied a student grant as she was not economically active (working) and had been living there for less than 5 years, was a discriminating rule as it did not apply to Dutch nationals, however ECJ held as per Art.24(2) MS can refuse student grants to EU citizens who don’t have permeant residence.
• ECJ states that rule was justified and proportionate as otherwise it would be an unreasonable burden of the MS which could affect the overall level of their grant system.
• Lair v Universität Hanover- The ECJ ruled that although she was a worker “some continuity between the previous occupation and the course of study” was required in order to obtain a grant for university education- still entitled to enrolment fees
o However, if a worker becomes involuntarily unemployed and is “obliged by conditions of the job market to undertake occupational training in another field of activity”, he/she will be entitled to general measures of support such as grants and loans.
• Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland (contrast)- employment is merely ancillary to studies, migrant workers are not entitled to financial assistance for their study in the host Member State.
• Bernini -ECJ held that as long as there was a link, didn’t matter where the course was located.

TillyG & Hamerzan Sickles - thank you sooo much! Exactly what I was looking for.