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

Inmyownworld

LostOutForeign wrote: »

Why wouldn't it have been valid? I said it was definitely valid...

Awful paper though, the shock of reading it was awful - when it's usually such a predictable paper. Answered the 5 questions but really struggled with easements and contractual licences

I said it might not be valid juat because she was present when it was being made...but if that was the case then just her portion would revert to the estate for partial intestacy. But i also said it might not affect it... Unsure! Think everything else was valid?

hullaballoo

Just a word of advice - you can decide for yourselves whether it's worth heeding - I wouldn't engage in scrutinising the details of the papers for exams you have already sat.

Some of you will inevitably have picked up on details others missed or interpreted questions differently. That is the nature of these things.

Getting into the answers you gave etc. can and does lead to some people having a freak out that they answered differently...which leads to thinking they've failed...which makes it impossible to focus on the next exam.

sophya

Trying to study for contract is like pulling teeth. Might try and wake up really early to skim over a few more topics. My head right now feels like cotton wool cause I think my headcold is making a return.

Lawstudent007

sophya wrote: »

Trying to study for contract is like pulling teeth. Might try and wake up really early to skim over a few more topics. My head right now feels like cotton wool cause I think my headcold is making a return.

What areas did you focus on sophya? Feeling wrecked myself but don't think I can afford to stop studying...

sophya

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

What areas did you focus on sophya? Feeling wrecked myself but don't think I can afford to stop studying...

I'm doing basically everything but not gonna get it all read over today.

Inmyownworld

I really dont have enough covered for contract. Head is n bits! Going to try to learn what I have tonight and skim over basic principles in the morning....hopefully enough to scrape the pass! So much on the syllabus for it and seems to always be a mix of topics in questions.

Glinda!

Can anyone tells me what cases are relevant in EU Free Movement of Goods to jutification for exception for payment of charge by domestic residents due to inconvenience suffered by them? Im specifically looking at Q6 March 2013 (i) where is says "Payments are made out of this fund by way of grants to persons living within 1km of turbine"

Ownleme

Can anyone tell me- Neville and sons v guardian builders. Sc said frustration or not? My notes contradict themselves. Thanks

michelle2000

Not Frustration as it was reasonably foreseeable that they might cet refuses

Ownleme wrote: »

Can anyone tell me- Neville and sons v guardian builders. Sc said frustration or not? My notes contradict themselves. Thanks

Inmyownworld

michelle2000 wrote: »

Not Frustration as it was reasonably foreseeable that they might cet refuses

I had thought that the planning permission was an exception to that in neville & sons? Even though it might have been in their contemplation they were allowed claim frustration, thats what I made from it in my notes, could be wrong?

Edit: just read, on appeal the supreme court reversed the decision of the high court , allowing frustration, on other grounds but appeared to also accept that frustration was possible in respect of some events that were foreseen.

--homeslice--

Well property was unexpected! Wondering if anyone here has any idea what kind of marker she is? I havnt heard horrendous things about property in the past but it could be just because the exams were 'easy'.. Did anyone here think they didn't do too well and still managed to pass?

These are my first set of FE1s and I really have no idea what to expect in relation to the marks people get - If these were ordinary college exams id never even think that id fail but the things I've heard from people put the fear of god into me!

Hokey poke

--homeslice-- wrote: »

Well property was unexpected! Wondering if anyone here has any idea what kind of marker she is? I havnt heard horrendous things about property in the past but it could be just because the exams were 'easy'.. Did anyone here think they didn't do too well and still managed to pass?

These are my first set of FE1s and I really have no idea what to expect in relation to the marks people get - If these were ordinary college exams id never even think that id fail but the things I've heard from people put the fear of god into me!

Do you reckon that considering the standards going to be a lot lower this year, it will be marked easier as a result? Or is there a certain pass standard to be met, and they just fail us all?!

--homeslice--

Hokey poke wrote: »

Do you reckon that considering the standards going to be a lot lower this year, it will be marked easier as a result? Or is there a certain pass standard to be met, and they just fail us all?!

Im hoping its the former to be honest! I actually like property too, that's the killing thing! definitely was not expecting it to be like that!

sophya

I think contract was manageable. I loved that essay question which let me ramble on about undue influence. Got rushed on my last question and had to scribble out a page on unilateral mistake with no case names only referring to one by the facts cause my mind went totally blank on mistake.

Ownleme

sophya wrote: »

I think contract was manageable. I loved that essay question which let me ramble on about undue influence. Got rushed on my last question and had to scribble out a page on unilateral mistake with no case names only referring to one by the facts cause my mind went totally blank on mistake.

Was that the surfboard?

Fe1stresser

Just wondering what people said for the question about the Sarah and Janice and Jeff and mark?

Also in question 1 was the second part lampleigh v braithwaite?

I'm not sure what kind of marker she is but I'm hoping not awful. Not happy with that paper but it was ok overall

sophya

Ownleme wrote: »

Was that the surfboard?

No it was q7 about giving guarantees to
Banks for family member debts. It specifically said recent case law so I'm glad I read through Roche and Buttimer this morning

sophya

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Just wondering what people said for the question about the Sarah and Janice and Jeff and mark?

Also in question 1 was the second part lampleigh v braithwaite?

I'm not sure what kind of marker she is but I'm hoping not awful. Not happy with that paper but it was ok overall

For Jeff and mark I talked about consideration and Williams v roffey brothers. Sarah and Janice I talked about rule in pinnels case and economic duress

Ownleme

Oh no I meant the mistake q

sophya

Ownleme wrote: »

Oh no I meant the mistake q

Haha sorry my brain is fried. Yeah did misrep for the first part and unilateral mistake badly for the surfboard part

Lawstudent007

What's the contract marker like I wonder.. Think I did three good questions and my last two was about 2 pages each with not much case law!! (Undue influence and the privity-agency) questions. Wonder if I did enough... My other three I felt was fairly good with a lot in them...

Ownleme

sophya wrote: »

For Jeff and mark I talked about consideration and Williams v roffey brothers. Sarah and Janice I talked about rule in pinnels case and economic duress

Yeah me too. Ok thanks. What was anyones conclusion for q1? I always get so confused by them and can never decide. Did anyone think a lot of people left?

Hokey poke

Found contract a bit tough, hard to tell whether I scrapped by.

I'm hoping that feeling like crap after each exam is the norm, and that I've actually passed each one so far.

Lawstudent007

Did anyone do question 8a? Agency... If so did you also include actual/ostensible authority in your answer?

Stormington

Ownleme wrote: »

Yeah me too. Ok thanks. What was anyones conclusion for q1? I always get so confused by them and can never decide. Did anyone think a lot of people left?

Short answer: Harry fine against Brenda, boned against Marie and Deirdre. Depends on the room you're in, didn't see too many leave but want really paying attention to others, apart from the cutie in the doc martens and leather jacket.

Ownleme

Mm. That was me! Lol Jk. Yeah maybe that was it. Cuz I was at the back this time n had nothing to write I noticed more ppl leaving. Maybe it's the same for all of them. Is he ok4breda cuz was just an ITT or cuz he can retract an offer anyway before she accepts it even if he says he won't

Lawstudent007

Ownleme wrote: »

Mm. That was me! Lol Jk. Yeah maybe that was it. Cuz I was at the back this time n had nothing to write I noticed more ppl leaving. Maybe it's the same for all of them. Is he ok4breda cuz was just an ITT or cuz he can retract an offer anyway before she accepts it even if he says he won't

Breda didn't offer any consideration

Milkypops

can anyone help me out with recent equity solutions by any chance???

Ownleme

Lawstudent007 wrote: »

Breda didn't offer any consideration

For the promise? Yeah fair enough. I think I said that. But then probably got confused n back tracked. Thanks

SeanPaul69

**** I said for q1 part 2 that there was an enforceable contract, but forgot about s4 of the sales of goods act

Also for Q1 part 1 you could just argue that whether revocation was communicated or not depended on the status of emails in contract law