Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

1137138140142143289

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭fe1fi20


    PROPERTY

    hey guys, does anyone have a sample answer to the 2019 spring paper - particularly the co ownership question? thanks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭Lallers96


    Same. Mine was roughly half the length of the other answers. I had a tiny intro, a few paras and a 5 line conclusion just baffling on about how sacred s31 is lol there is not a whole lot of material to cover for it

    I thought so too, there really wasn't a whole lot to say on the topic


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 82 ✭✭LeagleEagle747


    Found company to be mainly a complete rehash of previous exam questions, like the separate legal entity with holdings and subsidiaries, Paul and the cars, Harry, Jackie and Tim or whatever his name was. Hopefully things go well for all of us in terms of results because I cannot face sitting company again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 kayleee123


    Jenosul wrote: »
    Hi everyone. I hope the exams are going well. Can someone please tell me how the answered the question on the judicatory in Constitution. I am feeling a bit anxious that I made a mess of it. Thank you

    This was the last question I did as I didn't really want to do it so was my worst but I talked about the provisions which stipulate the judiciary is independent, then I went on to look at past cases where interference of the independence of the judiciary was struck down so Sinn Fein Funds case, Maher v AG and State v O'Brien and then looked at instances regarding misconduct of judges so golfgate and that justice Curtin not being removed from his position despite the child pornography.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭bluerthanu


    Found company to be mainly a complete rehash of previous exam questions, like the separate legal entity with holdings and subsidiaries, Paul and the cars, Harry, Jackie and Tim or whatever his name was. Hopefully things go well for all of us in terms of results because I cannot face sitting company again.

    Yeah, and that exact question was the sample question that came up for the mock exam on better examinations for setting up a few weeks ago. I thought SLP would come up but thought surely he’d change it. Great either way!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭nmurphy1441


    I think I’ve 3 very good answers and 2 middle of the road answers so here’s hoping!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭Fe1user5555


    kayleee123 wrote: »
    This was the last question I did as I didn't really want to do it so was my worst but I talked about the provisions which stipulate the judiciary is independent, then I went on to look at past cases where interference of the independence of the judiciary was struck down so Sinn Fein Funds case, Maher v AG and State v O'Brien and then looked at instances regarding misconduct of judges so golfgate and that justice Curtin not being removed from his position despite the child pornography.

    I said the same as this! Then a little bit about the sanction like if they were planning on removing judges would the council have the power to do that etc! Just threw anything in in the hopes of scraping a few marks in it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 kayleee123


    I said the same as this! Then a little bit about the sanction like if they were planning on removing judges would the council have the power to do that etc! Just threw anything in in the hopes of scraping a few marks in it

    Oh thank god, the whole time I was writing it I was like I don't know if this is what you were looking for but this is what you are getting :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75 ✭✭RebeccaM90


    Can anyone please help with regard to possible areas of reform for adverse possession? Help would be much appreciated, last past paper question to do and I’ve hit a brick wall...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 118 ✭✭AA247


    Can anyone summarise what came up in Company today 1-8 please?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭lawgrad49


    bluerthanu wrote: »
    Yeah, and that exact question was the sample question that came up for the mock exam on better examinations for setting up a few weeks ago. I thought SLP would come up but thought surely he’d change it. Great either way!

    Yeah I think that was sound enough on his behalf throwing on the same essay. Ultra Vires too was a nice one to come up as well as Floating Charges- carbon copies from previous years.

    Still found myself running out of time lol haha it's very hard to know where you stand with these typed exams!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭Fe1user5555


    kayleee123 wrote: »
    Oh thank god, the whole time I was writing it I was like I don't know if this is what you were looking for but this is what you are getting :confused:

    Judging from what I heard from people who have passed the exam he seems to give a little bit of wiggle room with regards those kind of q’s! Fingers crossed for us anyway!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭lawgrad49


    AA247 wrote: »
    Can anyone summarise what came up in Company today 1-8 please?

    4 essays:
    Ultra Vires
    SLP
    S. 31 Contract
    Crystallisatoin

    4 Problems:
    Fixed charge over book debts & Registrations
    Directors Duties
    Receivers
    Restrictions problem

    It's still too fresh in my head for my liking!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 214 ✭✭FE1new


    Honestly I'm not sure how that went. I answered 5 but my crystallisation felt really short compared to the rest. SLP, S228 and S819 were nice though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11 Flynner999


    fe1fi20 wrote: »
    PROPERTY

    hey guys, does anyone have a sample answer to the 2019 spring paper - particularly the co ownership question? thanks

    PM me your email and will send it on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14 mcdurh


    What are peoples thoughts on contact?

    I'm thinking I'll be more than covered if I have Offer/Acceptance, Consideration, Certainty, Terms, Consumer Protection, Exemption Clauses, Illegal Contracts, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Discharge of Contracts and Remedies.

    I feel as though I may be covering too much there and could trim it down?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭Fe1user5555


    mcdurh wrote: »
    What are peoples thoughts on contact?

    I'm thinking I'll be more than covered if I have Offer/Acceptance, Consideration, Certainty, Terms, Consumer Protection, Exemption Clauses, Illegal Contracts, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Discharge of Contracts and Remedies.

    I feel as though I may be covering too much there and could trim it down?

    I’m doing this but not doing illegal contracts and doing capacity and privity instead!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49 FE1Nov20


    mcdurh wrote: »
    What are peoples thoughts on contact?

    I'm thinking I'll be more than covered if I have Offer/Acceptance, Consideration, Certainty, Terms, Consumer Protection, Exemption Clauses, Illegal Contracts, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Discharge of Contracts and Remedies.

    I feel as though I may be covering too much there and could trim it down?

    I'm doing the exact same but leaving out illegal contracts!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14 mcdurh


    I’m doing this but not doing illegal contracts and doing capacity and privity instead!

    Yeah, it such a pain of a topic as you kind of just have to have 80% of the course covered in order to be able to attempt it. Nothing is particularly difficult, there's just so much mixing of topics and they all seem to just melt into one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭Fe1user5555


    mcdurh wrote: »
    Yeah, it such a pain of a topic as you kind of just have to have 80% of the course covered in order to be able to attempt it. Nothing is particularly difficult, there's just so much mixing of topics and they all seem to just melt into one.

    Yep literally! Hoping to be able to cram it all in over the weekend


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 99 ✭✭Lealaw


    Lovely paper. Thought the book debts question was a little tricky. I said that the charge over the bank account did not need to be registered because it was not a registerable charge. Does that sounds ok?

    I went with section s1001 tax consolidation act 1997 revenue can take what is due from the account. If not registered under that I understand it is invalid. Catch 22 - Either way I think revenue should be able to get what was due. Not 100% sure on this but read it somewhere and I know he is a fan of s.1001.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11 ejm47


    It was a lengthy question. What did you say for the bit about the books getting stolen?

    I said it probably wasn't dishonest or irresponsible basically lol because it was only one year and cited a case I now can't remember where 2 years of having no books was incompetent I think? Honestly have amnesia after it haha


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 235 ✭✭Iso_123


    I was wondering if anyone could help me out with EU and FMOG - There's nothing in my manual about article 34 and purely internal situations and I see this come up sometimes in questions and the examiner mentions that it needs to be discussed in the report for those questions. Does anyone have some notes on art 34 in relation to purely internal situations/cases or anything? I have loads of materials to swap!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭catonafence


    Iso_123 wrote: »
    I was wondering if anyone could help me out with EU and FMOG - There's nothing in my manual about article 34 and purely internal situations and I see this come up sometimes in questions and the examiner mentions that it needs to be discussed in the report for those questions. Does anyone have some notes on art 34 in relation to purely internal situations/cases or anything? I have loads of materials to swap!
    Pm me your email and I’ll send you my notes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 552 ✭✭✭awsah


    RebeccaM90 wrote: »
    Can anyone please help with regard to possible areas of reform for adverse possession? Help would be much appreciated, last past paper question to do and I’ve hit a brick wall...

    I think the city college NBN talks about this and how reform is needed to clarify if it is the intention of squatter or future intention of owner


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭murray132


    Pm me your email and I’ll send you my notes

    Can I please get notes off you as well, I would be most thankful 🙈


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭Dancing Obsession


    murray132 wrote: »
    Can I please get notes off you as well, I would be most thankful 🙈

    I would recommend to watch City Colleges short lecture on EU exam.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 552 ✭✭✭awsah


    AA21 wrote: »
    Would anyone have a sample answer on illegal contracts? And the courts approach in refusing to enforce such contracts?? There’s been a few recent enough cases on it so defo going to cover it as an essay question ! Any help would be appreciated

    I would appreciate thisnalso! :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭mydogwentroof


    Lealaw wrote: »
    I went with section s1001 tax consolidation act 1997 revenue can take what is due from the account. If not registered under that I understand it is invalid. Catch 22 - Either way I think revenue should be able to get what was due. Not 100% sure on this but read it somewhere and I know he is a fan of s.1001.

    He is categorically not a fan of s.1001...In his book he says that if there was a prize for the most tortuous, cryptic and rambling enactment it would go to s.1001


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭bobbyness


    He is categorically not a fan of s.1001...In his book he says that if there was a prize for the most tortuous, cryptic and rambling enactment it would go to s.1001

    Still comes up in the marking scheme as worth noting for marks!


Advertisement