nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Tom Young

This is the new FE1 Exam Thread

This is a link to the old one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055143169

This is a link to the next one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056907164

Sorry, I'm aware we are in the throws of FE1 season, but due to a server issue, a new thread was required. Old chats and posts below - Thanks!

Mod warning in post #1205: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88514663&postcount=1205

Mod warning in post #2555: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91819622&postcount=2555

Mod warning in post #2593: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92025688&postcount=2593

Moderator: The above warnings mean it is not ok to buy, sell or swap (trade) any exam materials in this thread. Exam grids are the only exception. You may request and exchange exam grids but at no point will money be allowed to change hands for them.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nicolesd

T.Chunter164 wrote: »

our prep course told us those are important in addition to the others - 3 rules in total. See my post on previous page

so what would you say the rules for those 3 cases are exactlly? and how much detail is required of them cases?

any other tips for equity?

Aoibhin511

legallyginger wrote: »

Contract
Misrepresentation: worthwhile learning contracts "uberrimae fides" and basis of the contract? Has never come up really debating it

Yes, new legislation in this area commenced in September
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/53/enacted/en/html

legallyginger

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yes, new legislation in this area commenced in September
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/53/enacted/en/html

Thanks wasn't aware of this

CiaraND16

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

Fe1forthefun

Hey, does anyone know what March 2020 Q3 on constitutional is about? Preservation of pensions pot questions. I'm thinking general property rights but not sure how to divide out my answer between the three scenarios

legallyginger

CiaraND16 wrote: »

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

The grid I have says Consideration and Privity

tommytimber

QUIA TIMET INJUNCTIONS

In Szabo, the Campus oil test was not applied but in the manual it says the test should apply as quia timet is just the "nature" of an injunction.

Are people going to apply the Campus Oil test or just follow Szabo?

BugsySiegel

CiaraND16 wrote: »

Contract

March 2020 Q4 does anybody know/been told by their lecturer if this was consideration and privity as Maire wants to sue Charles?

Máire is the owner of the Comfy Café. She decides to expand her café and hires Bob to build a fully completed extension on the existing premises. The contract between Máire and Bob clearly states that the work is to be finished by the 31 January 2020, and it includes a penalty clause which says Bob is to be liable for the loss caused by any delays, howsoever caused.
Bob enters into sub-contract with Charles, a local plumber in town. Charles agrees to carry our all the plumbing work on the extension by 31 December 2019. Bob emphasises that it is essential that his work be done on time. However, by mid-November 2019 it becomes clear that Charles will not be able to complete the work on time. Charles demands €5,000 to enable him to hire extra workers so he can finish the work on time. However, once the work is done Bob writes Charles a letter saying he is not going to pay Charles the extra €5,000. He says he only agreed to the extra money under duress, and that Charles “did nothing extra to earn the cash”. In addition, Máire is unhappy with some of the plumbing work completed by Charles. She claims that water leaks from the pipes and is causing damage to her floors. She is threatening to sue Charles for breach of contract.
Advise Charles.

This is touching on a range of doctrines. The main thing theyr looking for is a discussion of the maxim that a promise to fulfill a pre existing contractual duty cant amount to to sufficient consideration. The facts are similar to Williams v Roffey Brothers so Id be giving them everything I have on that case. That case basically provides an exception to that rule. I think youd get marks for discussing the rule against past consideration as well.
The fact theyv specifically mentioned duress probably merits a brief discussion of that as well. I think my answer to this would be a very brief discussion on what a penalty clause is and why it probably wont be enforceable. A few paragraphs on the consideration aspect, one paragraph on the duress aspect and then a couple of paragraphs on the breach of contract issue.
Everything is complicated by the privity issue [whether Maire can recover as against Charles cus she didnt actually enter a contract with him] so I imagine youd have to give that some discussion to get a high mark. Bit of a nightmare of a question actually because of the range of issues. Think Id avoid it if if possible.

EAA123

Fe1forthefun wrote: »

Hey, does anyone know what March 2020 Q3 on constitutional is about? Preservation of pensions pot questions. I'm thinking general property rights but not sure how to divide out my answer between the three scenarios

i think parts of it are in relation to equality as well and age discrimination but not fully sure

lsheehaneire

Locus standing, property rights, right to earn a livelihood (for employers) equality as to the age.

fe12020oct

EQUITY

If estoppel comes up this year is it more likely to be a prob q or essay on unconscionability? Thinking of leaving the latter out but not sure if that’s a bad idea

LS3

for people that have extra time, what does your exam length say on better examinations?

shaunadennyham

fe12020oct wrote: »

EQUITY

If estoppel comes up this year is it more likely to be a prob q or essay on unconscionability? Thinking of leaving the latter out but not sure if that’s a bad idea

I’m leaning towards prob q but who knows

FE1Lordthe2nd

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have contract law sample answers? I can swap with other materials if needed.

Thanks

CoconutHeadMia

Constitutional
Getting a bit confused about locus standi - am I right in saying mohan v ireland is a relaxation of locus standi requirement from cahill vs Sutton?

Shonagoring123

SKLaw wrote: »

Sure would you mind sending me your email?

Could you pm me as every time I try to pm you it logs me out

fe12020oct

does anybody have the March 2020 equity paper they could send me ?

FE1TINY

fe12020oct wrote: »

does anybody have the March 2020 equity paper they could send me ?

I have what’s your email address

ellachapman96

Does anyone think just covering unconstitutionally obtained evidence and access to solicitor would be too risk for the trial in due course chapter? It's just so big and I have to start cutting stuff

EAA123

ellachapman96 wrote: »

Does anyone think just covering unconstitutionally obtained evidence and access to solicitor would be too risk for the trial in due course chapter? It's just so big and I have to start cutting stuff

i have down the big issues to cover in trial in due course of law:

- right to silence
- access to legal advice
- unconstitutionally obtained evidence
- undue delay

so even if you learned a couple of cases to be on the safe side for the other sub topics so you can answer a full question if it came up.

Lawlaw12

ellachapman96 wrote: »

Does anyone think just covering unconstitutionally obtained evidence and access to solicitor would be too risk for the trial in due course chapter? It's just so big and I have to start cutting stuff

I'm considering leaving the whole chapter out
Even every subtopic is so long, so I probably won't have time to do any of them

Healyjhow

Does anyone know for donatia mortis causa would you apply the test in Re Wasserberg to a problem question or the test in Bentham V Potterton?

fe1time

I've some older sample papers from 2005-2013, if you want them DM me your email

FE1Lordthe2nd wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have contract law sample answers? I can swap with other materials if needed.

Thanks

nicolesd

fe12020oct wrote: »

EQUITY

If estoppel comes up this year is it more likely to be a prob q or essay on unconscionability? Thinking of leaving the latter out but not sure if that’s a bad idea

does people think estoppel may come up? i was thinking since it was on the last 2 sittings it might be unlikely but maybe i should cover it should i?

FE1new

EQUITY

I've run out of time and only have interlocutory, mandatory interlocutory and quia timet done. Do you think its okay to leave out Maerva and Anton Pillar?

nicolesd

FE1new wrote: »

EQUITY

I've run out of time and only have interlocutory, mandatory interlocutory and quia timet done. Do you think its okay to leave out Maerva and Anton Pillar?

Im leaving out anton pillar because it was up last 2 sittings...im studying mareva even though it came up last time because it did come up twice in a row in 2018!

i am hoping though for Mareva again or mandatory i only know 2/3 cases for QT just incase

fe12020oct

nicolesd wrote: »

does people think estoppel may come up? i was thinking since it was on the last 2 sittings it might be unlikely but maybe i should cover it should i?

realistically im probs gonna leave it out too because so stuck for time! might focus more on undue influence/specific performance

FE1new

Is the following enough for equity do you think? I'm so stuck for time. My other 3 took up too much of my study time and I've left this exam:

Specific Performance
Estoppel
Tracing
Trustees
Charitable trusts
Strong v bird, DMC, Hastings Bass rule
Recission and undue influence (not well at all)
Mandatory interlocutory injunctions, QT injunctions.

Is there anything else that is quick and easy to cover?

Fe1user5555

Do you think it’s safe to leave out Quistclose trusts for equity tomorrow? Under a bit of time pressure

fe12020oct

equity

this might be a stupid question but in a prob q for mandatory injunctions would the correct approach be to apply the general campus oil principles then go on to discuss the requirement for likelihood for success at trial with case law and then apply to facts of case?