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!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

LaLuciole

michelle2000 wrote: »

What are people doing for property? Are ye taking the risk that nothing changes this paper and studying 6 topics? Any predictions? Best if luck to those doing company tomorrow

If something out of the ordinary comes up in property then il 100 percent be crying in the exam hall! trying to go over company at the moment but property is still looming over me...ive succession, AP, co-ownership, easements, family property and a bare idea of licences, what about you?

CRM1 wrote: »

Has anyone got sample answers for Property would be greatly appreciated can swap for contract, constitutional or equity??

I have a few but none for the last 2 or 3 sittings, i can send them on if you want though, just pm your email address

michelle2000

LaLuciole wrote: »

If something out of the ordinary comes up in property then il 100 percent be crying in the exam hall! trying to go over company at the moment but property is still looming over me...ive succession, AP, co-ownership, easements, family property and a bare idea of licences, what about you?

I have a few but none for the last 2 or 3 sittings, i can send them on if you want though, just pm your email address

Same thing - I've prepped rights of res and prop esp in case I have to a q on licences. Have left out bare and contractual as they appeared last year. Have also flicked over finding as its v short might be worth reading for a half hour tomorrow if you have time

CRM1

michelle2000 wrote: »

What are people doing for property? Are ye taking the risk that nothing changes this paper and studying 6 topics? Any predictions? Best if luck to those doing company tomorrow

After today's paper, I would prefer to leave myself with one or two more options!! But I don't think it will too much of a change! Hopefully!!

rickety cricket

Could anyone tell me if the JD Brian case has seen its appeal? Also is the high court decision saying that the crystallisation was valid but the charge itself could not be recognised as a fixed charge?

[Deleted User]

rickety cricket wrote: »

Could anyone tell me if the JD Brian case has seen its appeal? Also is the high court decision saying that the crystallisation was valid but the charge itself could not be recognised as a fixed charge?

I googled it yesterday and couldn't find any mention of a Supreme Court judgment so I think not.

The High Court judgment stated that even though the charge had crystallised (and so was a fixed charge) the holder still couldn't gain priority over preferential creditors (i.e. secured creditors and those listed in s 285).

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone

[Deleted User]

Anyone have 2012/2013 sample answers for company? Can swap for other materials (on whatever subject).

Getting stressed...

ShamblesB

Good luck to everyone in company today! Does anyone know is tort a hard marker? Im so disappointed with how it went after realising a few of us misread question 3!

and does anybody know what they were looking for in question 7? I wrote about the defective products act but now im starting to think it could be a duty to recall if such a thing exists? Any advice would be much appreciated!

Inmyownworld

LaLuciole wrote: »

If something out of the ordinary comes up in property then il 100 percent be crying in the exam hall! trying to go over company at the moment but property is still looming over me...ive succession, AP, co-ownership, easements, family property and a bare idea of licences, what about you?

I'm doing pretty much the exact same thing, just trying to drum the case law into my head now.

Fingers crossed!

Glinda!

ShamblesB wrote: »

Good luck to everyone in company today! Does anyone know is tort a hard marker? Im so disappointed with how it went after realising a few of us misread question 3! and does anybody know what they were looking for in question 7? I wrote about the defective products act but now im starting to think it could be a duty to recall if such a thing exists? Any advice would be much appreciated!

I have heard he is a hard marker but realistically we're all in the same boat, how many people will have made the exact same mistake because of a deliberate attempt to trick us? I cant see that everyone can be harshly penalised otherwise most of us would probably not pass!! Sometimes a harder paper makes for easier markings. I remember sitting Constitutional, I had no clue, no cases, just vomited out as much as I could onto the paper, the girl beside me was literally crying for the first half hr that you have to remain in the hall, uterally gutted. . . and I passed! He cant fail every1! May not be half as bad as u think!

littlemac1980

ShamblesB wrote: »

Good luck to everyone in company today! Does anyone know is tort a hard marker? Im so disappointed with how it went after realising a few of us misread question 3! and does anybody know what they were looking for in question 7? I wrote about the defective products act but now im starting to think it could be a duty to recall if such a thing exists? Any advice would be much appreciated!

If Ray Friel is still the examiner, then yes in my experience he is a tough Marker in the FE1's.

On a more optimistic note when I passed Tort I was very concerned I had failed it, but obviously didn't, however I did fail it the first time.

To pass Tort you really really have to get 5 questions finished - although a few bullet points for the last half of the last question may suffice if they are on topic.

I would think completely messing up one question would make it very difficult to pass, but it may be the case that if you pick up a few marks in that question - you might be able to get over the line if the other 3-4 questions are answered well.

People automatically freak out when they think that they largely messed up a question - saying to themselves - I've lost 20 marks there.

In truth - given the papers tend to be marked so hard - you've only potentially missed out on 10-14 marks, and if you got some of the the basics right in the question, and picked up 3-4 marks then you may only have to make up 8-10 marks in the other questions to keep on track.

So what I'm saying is keep the chin-up and concentrate on doing the best you can in those exams that are left - you might be surprised when you get your results to see how your results stack up to your expectations.

ShamblesB

Yes i hope so! Im trying to study for property at the minute but just keep looking at tort!!! I have to let go and move on! Hopefully the fact that quite a few of us appear to have made the same error he might show some leniency... Even if we picked up 4 or 5 marks like you say and managed to get above 10 on a few other questions we might pass... Although the fact that some students answered correctly maybe not. Only time will tell! Glinda have you any idea what he was looking for in question 7? There was no damage to property so im thinking i may have went off the point on that one too

Tea-a-Maria

Company was ropey for me!Blanked on a lot of the ultra vires cases and pre-emption rights ones.Hopefully 3 good answers and 2 shaky ones is enough to pass!

chops018

I found company alright. I blanked with a few cases for RTOC though unfortunately, got a few in and got plenty of info down for it so hopefully he only looks upon it as it was a simple case of forgetting the names.

Did s.205 problem and addressed the problem well but again blanked on some cases.. had 3 or 4 cases for it so please let that be enough.

The other 3 I did were grand I think.

Wasn't a bad paper at all, the only complaint I have is that I should have had a small bit more info for the questions myself, but I think I touched upon all the right things, had cases and used the legislation. So hopefully a pass.

Does anyone know what the examiner is like for it?

ShamblesB

chops018 wrote: »

I found company alright. I blanked with a few cases for RTOC though unfortunately, got a few in and got plenty of info down for it so hopefully he only looks upon it as it was a simple case of forgetting the names.

Did s.205 problem and addressed the problem well but again blanked on some cases.. had 3 or 4 cases for it so please let that be enough.

The other 3 I did were grand I think.

Wasn't a bad paper at all, the only complaint I have is that I should have had a small bit more info for the questions myself, but I think I touched upon all the right things, had cases and used the legislation. So hopefully a pass.

Does anyone know what the examiner is like for it?

I done it in march had 3 good questions and 2 bad and got 50 on the button so hopefully you get a pass! :-)

Milkypops

Ya I think I did 3 good enough and 2 alright....3 share based questions I say would have been nasty for some people.... Considering I spent all yesterday evening crying and refusing to look at my notes it wasn't the worst paper to be put in front of me this morning! A nice night sleep is needed before starting equity...and God do I need it!

Morris_fe1s

I knew he would drop one of the regulars but i expected that to be share transfer or corporate borrowings not scp.... Spent a long time on scp to be my no 1 question but the contingency plan is always essential.

Milkypops

Morris_fe1s wrote: »

I knew he would drop one of the regulars but i expected that to be share transfer or corporate borrowings not scp.... Spent a long time on scp to be my no 1 question but the contingency plan is always essential.

Not surprised he did to be honest... I say there sick of it! Still manages to bring in lifting the veil for the directors question so still got it in somewhere! I'm just glad it's over!

Morris_fe1s

Milkypops wrote: »

Not surprised he did to be honest... I say there sick of it! Still manages to bring in lifting the veil for the directors question so still got it in somewhere! I'm just glad it's over!

For directors duties I focussed on;
- Competition with a company (took a while to draw out)
- Conflict of interest
- Good faith
- Skill and care
- Disclosure
Then the remedies available... didn't have time for anything else tbh

ShamblesB

Quick property question! By estoppel licences do they mean the same as proprietory estoppel in equity ie. Gillet v holt, thorner v major etc r is it something else? Because in some of the cases they transfer the fee simple which is a lot more than a licence? Im a bit confused i just covered estoppel in equity but im not sure if its the same thing?

Milkypops

Morris_fe1s wrote: »

For directors duties I focussed on;
- Competition with a company
- Conflict of interest
- Disclosure
Then the remedies available... didn't have time for anything else tbh

Ya so did I just wrote a tiny bit on disclosure just mainly the section and what it entailed and used gencor v dalby to back up used good faith aswell in addition...to be honest I'm glad I managEd 5 even if they weren't an examiner's dream answers! Have u many left?

sally01

ShamblesB wrote: »

Quick property question! By estoppel licences do they mean the same as proprietory estoppel in equity ie. Gillet v holt, thorner v major etc r is it something else? Because in some of the cases they transfer the fee simple which is a lot more than a licence? Im a bit confused i just covered estoppel in equity but im not sure if its the same thing?

From looking at the examiner's reports and the night before notes for property it seems to be the same thing. I'm treating it as effectively the same anyway and just have the one set of estoppel notes I'm working off.

Milkypops

sally01 wrote: »

From looking at the examiner's reports and the night before notes for property it seems to be the same thing. I'm treating it as effectively the same anyway and just have the one set of estoppel notes I'm working off.

is it usually promissory estoppel for equity questions?? i.e assurance, reliance and detriment??

ShamblesB

Milkypops wrote: »

is it usually promissory estoppel for equity questions?? i.e assurance, reliance and detriment??

Yes it is. Is is something different for property?

ShamblesB

sally01 wrote: »

From looking at the examiner's reports and the night before notes for property it seems to be the same thing. I'm treating it as effectively the same anyway and just have the one set of estoppel notes I'm working off.

Yeah same here just working off the one set of notes, hopefully its the same thing anyway!!

mirm

Milkypops wrote: »

is it usually promissory estoppel for equity questions?? i.e assurance, reliance and detriment??

Is it not proprietary estoppel for equity and promissory for contract?

Milkypops

mirm wrote: »

Is it not proprietary estoppel for equity and promissory for contract?

all i know is all my sample answers deal with promissory any chance you have ones for proprietary?

Glinda!

Glinda have you any idea what he was looking for in question 7? There was no damage to property so im thinking i may have went off the point on that one too

[/quote]

There was no damage so no causal link but duty of care is owed outside of contract and standard of care would be high as it is a medical product but i dono how dangerous exactly it could be other then whole dose being leaked into body rather than in stages. Global Remedy should have recalled product once supplier made them aware of possible defect therefore breached duty etc. . But lot of unknowns in q i thought like whom did she buy the product from, did she have to have it implanted by a medical professional/implications of that. If my thinking above is right claim would be against Global Remedy rather than the original manufacturer? Like the rest of the paper it ws supposed to confuse the hell outa ya!!

chops018

Morris_fe1s wrote: »

I knew he would drop one of the regulars but i expected that to be share transfer or corporate borrowings not scp.... Spent a long time on scp to be my no 1 question but the contingency plan is always essential.

Retention of Title Clauses is part of the Corporate Borrowing topic isn't it? (Question 4).

Milkypops

chops018 wrote: »

Retention of Title Clauses is part of the Corporate Borrowing topic isn't it? (Question 4).

isnt he saying thats what he thought they might drop and not SLP?

hows it feel to finished chops??

ShamblesB

Glinda! wrote: »

Glinda have you any idea what he was looking for in question 7? There was no damage to property so im thinking i may have went off the point on that one too

There was no damage so no causal link but duty of care is owed outside of contract and standard of care would be high as it is a medical product but i dono how dangerous exactly it could be other then whole dose being leaked into body rather than in stages. Global Remedy should have recalled product once supplier made them aware of possible defect therefore breached duty etc. . But lot of unknowns in q i thought like whom did she buy the product from, did she have to have it implanted by a medical professional/implications of that. If my thinking above is right claim would be against Global Remedy rather than the original manufacturer? Like the rest of the paper it ws supposed to confuse the hell outa ya!![/quote]

Haha oh god well it certainly did confuse the hell out of me! In fact it has made me question my chosen career path! Hopefully in real life things wouldnt be so complicated! Was there many cases for recalls? I didnt even mention that! There was nothing about it in my notes! Im hoping it was just a side point rather than supposed to b the main part of the answer!