FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sunnyside · 30-09-2009 7:18pm

I should be able to do 5 case so long as the questions aren't on very specific things. For example I have done more than 20 cases for separation of powers so if the questions are fairly general I'll be ok for cases but I don't have 5 cases on every sub topic. This is so stressful:(

Jev/N · 30-09-2009 7:37pm

sunnyside wrote: »

I should be able to do 5 case so long as the questions aren't on very specific things. For example I have done more than 20 cases for separation of powers so if the questions are fairly general I'll be ok for cases but I don't have 5 cases on every sub topic. This is so stressful:(

Ah...Constitutional. Not doing that this time round but IIRC the numbers of cases per topic fluctuates dramatically between some, so I wouldn't worry too much

32minutes · 30-09-2009 9:16pm

without going into too much postmortem, what did anyone think of the trespass question (intent and negligence in terms of trespass and person) ?
ended up doing it as a fifth but unsure of exactly what they may have been looking for

Dante09 · 30-09-2009 9:38pm

32minutes wrote: »

without going into too much postmortem, what did anyone think of the trespass question (intent and negligence in terms of trespass and person) ?
ended up doing it as a fifth but unsure of exactly what they may have been looking for

I mentioned Devlin v Roche, Fagan v Metropol, Re polemis, re wagon mound (and some others).....Criticisms? how can one intend an indirect battery? etc.

32minutes · 30-09-2009 10:45pm

mostly talked about the strict liability basis for most trespass, caselaw on battery like cole v turner and distinguishing between casual "non liable" battery compared to what some would call "hostile" battery, some talk on defences too and their state of mind. thought the paper wasnt tooo bad apart from that
would have liked a nervousr shock q but cant get everything

SteJay · 01-10-2009 11:46am

As soon as anyone is finished with their Equity, Contract and Criminal nutshells/Independent college books etc I have cash ready to buy them.Must be most recent ones

vote4pedro · 01-10-2009 1:52pm

haha, did someone get a letter from a solicitor in their inbox this morning?

Anyone able to reassure me that I can still have passed despite doing a last question in bullet points and rather crappy ones at that? Was surprised there was nothing on Liq/Examiners/Receivers on the company paper today. Had to do bullet points for the appointment of Directors question which I thought was pretty tricky.

PC021 · 01-10-2009 2:06pm

I passed Company in the last sitting by answering 4 questions and I really didn't know much about the 5th question and went off in some random rant...its possible!
Its poor form that they have the exams on without any breaks in between- the law society must be cutting the cost of renting Neptune (Cork)

Jev/N · 01-10-2009 2:32pm

vote4pedro wrote: »

Had to do bullet points for the appointment of Directors question which I thought was pretty tricky.

I did something similar.... did the 4 questions and then a toss up for the last between this one and Q3. I couldn't get my head around 3 so just threw together a couple of pages on this, half of which was bulleted. Didn't bother with conclusions for most of my answers except probs so hope it was alright! I'd say you'll be fine TBH, best of luck!

Was quite p!ssed of not to see anything on Separate Legal Personality or Realisation of Assets!

vote4pedro · 01-10-2009 3:01pm

Great, at least I'm not totally out of it so after one bad question.

Jev/N wrote: »

I did something similar.... did the 4 questions and then a toss up for the last between this one and Q3. I couldn't get my head around 3 so just threw together a couple of pages on this, half of which was bulleted. Didn't bother with conclusions for most of my answers except probs so hope it was alright! I'd say you'll be fine TBH, best of luck!

Was quite p!ssed of not to see anything on Separate Legal Personality or Realisation of Assets!

Yeah I thought not having SLP or the three realisation of assets would throw a lot of people (it did me!) but afterwards most people seemed happy with the paper. Also what was question 3, the one with the the two builder Directors and one acting in breach of his duty? I think that was phrased strangely, you were asked to advise about his remedies...did that mean it was just a question on what remedies are available (I didn't think there'd be enough in Aerospaces case and stuff like that to warrant a full question on account for profits, possible injunction etc) or was it a general Directors Duties questions where you should have talked about was there a duty owed to the Co, to the other Dir, and then what Fiduciary or CL duties were breached.
Glad I didn't do that question in the end but it wasted a good 5 minutes or so trying to get my head around it!

_JOE_ · 01-10-2009 3:16pm

Managed to ger a copy of today's paper...Is question 3 not mostly re s205?

vote4pedro · 01-10-2009 3:20pm

_JOE_ wrote: »

Managed to ger a copy of today's paper...Is question 3 not mostly re s205?

Doh! Yeah that was probably it alright, again glad I didn't touch it

Jev/N · 01-10-2009 3:45pm

_JOE_ wrote: »

Managed to ger a copy of today's paper...Is question 3 not mostly re s205?

Don't think so as they were 50/50 shareholders but then again I suppose it would be under "disregard of members interests"? Also, I'd imagine this would relate to s.213(f) winding up on just and equitable grounds?

I had studied those topics but just found the question a bit too iffy to bother attempting!

Dante09 · 01-10-2009 4:03pm

Jev/N wrote: »

Don't think so as they were 50/50 shareholders but then again I suppose it would be under "disregard of members interests"?

I didnt even read that question as I was happy with the 5 i did. But you dont need to be in a minority to claim opression.

vote4pedro · 01-10-2009 4:23pm

by the by, has anyone got a list of what came up in each question last April for Equity?

Chip Ralston · 01-10-2009 5:16pm

Q.3 was a curve ball alright. I tried to apply some directors duties to Leonard like not exercising his power for proper purpose (Howard Smith) and fettering his discretion by buying properties and offloading them at cost price or lower to Frederick (Clark v. Workman).

Is s.205 remedy open to directors against directors?

Dante09 · 01-10-2009 5:36pm

Chip Ralston wrote: »

Q.3 was a curve ball alright. I tried to apply some directors duties to Leonard like not exercising his power for proper purpose (Howard Smith) and fettering his discretion by buying properties and offloading them at cost price or lower to Frederick (Clark v. Workman).

Is s.205 remedy open to directors against directors?

I think so. Werent they all directors AND equal shareholders in Re Murphs Restaurants

lollipop · 01-10-2009 5:50pm

My dodgy 5th question this morning was the director/shadow director/de facto director question... I started by describing the differences between the three types and then, having seen the word "duties" in the first line went off talking about director's duties -to whom they are owed, fettering of discretion, abuse of power etc.

Was this all completely irrelevant??

lougem · 01-10-2009 6:17pm

lollipop wrote: »

My dodgy 5th question this morning was the director/shadow director/de facto director question... I started by describing the differences between the three types and then, having seen the word "duties" in the first line went off talking about director's duties -to whom they are owed, fettering of discretion, abuse of power etc. Was this all completely irrelevant??

I thought the question was asking you more about who director's duties are owed by (such as token directors, the ratio in Kelly's Carpetdrome etc). I thought logically liabilities would be owed by them too, so I didnt pay much attention to that part of the Q. If I got that wrong it wouldnt matter- overall it went terribly! Nothing on Liquidations, Recievership, SLP- all of which I was counting on! Couldnt have gone worse...

Seemed to me a lot of the questions were based on the 1990 Act as well which took me by surprise.

01-10-2009 8:32pm

lougem wrote: »

Yep I was surprised that causation in negligence was only touched on in one question that was mainly about Rylands v Fletcher.

That was the burst water pipe question yea? Did not like the look of that so steered clear! If anything I was expecting a critical analysis question of RvF.

No other monster surprises though.

lougem · 01-10-2009 11:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That was the burst water pipe question yea? Did not like the look of that so steered clear! If anything I was expecting a critical analysis question of RvF.

No other monster surprises though.

Yeh it was- at least I think so

It could have been worse I suppose.

gatorade · 02-10-2009 9:18am

brian__foley wrote: »

Well, term hasn't started yet, and I'm spending far too much time obsessing over fantasy football right now so why not post a bit of rubbishy advice every now and then? Now...back to Gerrard, Kuyt or Torres for today's captain...

Hi brian, always liked your constitutional law class, was easier to understand!

I have a really basic question:

How does one go about making skeleton notes? What should they look like etc?

I tried doing flash cards but put way too much info. on them. Any suggestions?

Thank you!

Jev/N · 02-10-2009 11:04am

Skeleton notes IMO should be:

Main headings and sub topics
Cases & Statute under each of these
Possibly some important principles depending on the topic/subject

You should be able to glance at the notes and be able to fill in the blanks in your head and after awhile do that without skeleton notes/flash cards at all

brian__foley · 02-10-2009 11:18am

Jev/N wrote: »

Skeleton notes IMO should be:

Main headings and sub topics
Cases & Statute under each of these
Possibly some important principles depending on the topic/subject

You should be able to glance at the notes and be able to fill in the blanks in your head and after awhile do that without skeleton notes/flash cards at all

Agreed, 100%. I would go a bit futher, and aim (after the above) to make up notes that I can print and physically fill in the gaps over and over again. It would basically be a table of contents with a list of cases. Suppose I was trying to make notes on, just to take bit of Contract Law, the "offer", it woudl just be.

1. Offer - the Definition

Clarke Definition / Friel Definition

2. Offer - Is it Really an Offer?

Clifton v Palumbo - words used may not be an offer if they couldn't reasonably be regarded as a clear and unambiguous statement of the terms upon which one was willing to contract.

Gibson v MCC - MCC only stated a potential willingness to sell. No Offer

Storer v MCC - MCC stated a far more certain offer.

Harvey v Facey - Will you sell me BH Pen - "lowest price acceptable" - not an offer.

3. Offer v Invitation to Treat

Min for I&C v Pim - coat in shop window not an offer
Pharm Soc v Boots CC - goods on shelves not an offer
Partridge v Crittenden - ad in paper not an offer
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store - where retailer made a clear and definite statement which appeared to look like a unilateral offer and requested something in exchange for something ....could be an offer
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

[etc]

4. Offer v Mere Puff

[etc]

And so on....

Once you can fill in the gaps, then you move to just having the section headings and the case names, and you don't need prompting as to what each case says.

Then eventually you get to being able to "skeleton" out the whole course, just from memory (assuming you can study like this).

If anything it makes people realise that cases are grouped in manuals / books for a reason and it makes it harder to miss issues.

Hope that helps

Torres was the choice...and what a choice...86 points that week.

lougem · 02-10-2009 2:05pm

So, any thoughts on today's Constitutional paper? Not too bad I thought, although I was disappointed there wasn't a specific Q on the Separation of Powers. I would also have liked a general Q on unenumerated rights. I found the issues a bit hard to identify in some of the Qs, but that may be my fault for not studying enough :rolleyes:

sarcastra · 02-10-2009 2:41pm

Hi lougem...

I found today's Constitutional exam really annoying. You're right - it was difficult to identify the issues and then even once you did it wasn't a simple application - the facts were twisted so that you would have to think outside the box in your application of the legal principles.

I know that's the purpose of an examination but it's just so demotivating. If the ability to apply legal principles in a thought-provoking manner was really a key element of these exams, then why would they require us to learn so many topics in order to be able to even attempt the paper.

I was also annoyed on the "right to a good name" spin on Fair Procedures. I would have preferred if it had been a problem question and maybe one of the rights-based questions to be an essay question.

Ah well. That's my rant for today. At least it's over eh!

legallad · 02-10-2009 2:49pm

i also was quite annoyed by constitution today, while the topics that came up were quite easy some of the questions were so open to intepretation.

Could someboday tell me was q2 solely a question on minor v non minor offences?

The question on right to a good name in the fair procedures was also quite confusing and required a high level of thought in an exam where time is of the essence.

In the delegation of powers/property rights Q would you be faulted for just answering one instead of both, as i said it was too open to interpretation.

sunnyside · 02-10-2009 2:59pm

lougem wrote: »

I was disappointed there wasn't a specific Q on the Separation of Powers. I would also have liked a general Q on unenumerated rights. I found the issues a bit hard to identify in some of the :rolleyes:

Today was my first fe1 exam ever. As you say it was really hard to identify the issues.

sarcastra wrote: »

hen why would they require us to learn so many topics in order to be able to even attempt the paper.

I was also annoyed on the "right to a good name" spin on Fair Procedures. I would have preferred if it had been a problem question and maybe one of the rights-based questions to be an essay question.

Can somebody post what the issues were? Here's what I think they were.

Q1 Attorney general
Q2 The offence wasn't a summary offence--5 years in prison and €10,000 fine. This seemed like a question more suited to criminal law.
Q3 I didn't do this. Was it about freedom of expression?
Q4 Article 26
Q5 Was this about Tribunals?
Q6 Delegated legislation?
Q7 Something about Separation of powers, very similar to a case DeVito Arklow about a gaming licence. I wrote about that case mostly.
Q8 Family rights

The Article 26 President issue and the Attorney general are in the same chapter in the manual so leaving that out would be 2 questions you couldn't do.

There was very little about rights which I expect a lot of people were relying on.

sunnyside · 02-10-2009 3:07pm

legallad wrote: »

Could someboday tell me was q2 solely a question on minor v non minor offences?

.

I'd be delighted if someone could explain this. If the case couldn't be tried in the District court isn't that it, end of story but a paragraph would explain that. I think they might have wanted us to mention that constitutional issues can't be dealt with in the District court but I didn't think of that until after leaving the exam hall.

Did creating a criminal offence have anything to do with it? A judicial power issue, I'm thinking not because it was a court that would be trying the offence anyway not a tribunal but identifying the issues really was difficult.

sarcastra · 02-10-2009 4:24pm

legallad wrote: »

In the delegation of powers/property rights Q would you be faulted for just answering one instead of both, as i said it was too open to interpretation.

I think that as long as you have advised the injured party sufficently on any constitutional ground then not answering both aspects should be fine - especially since it was so open to interpretation. I dealt with the property rights aspect of this question mainly with a footnote reference to the possibility of the delegation of powers argument.

FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Comments