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

I've heard that the examiner tends to recycle questions/topics often.

Has anyone here made a list of what those questions are?

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Sorry to double post but someone answered my q on topics in company law a while back so I will repost

Originally Posted by CiaranS93 View Post
Personally, I just did 5 topics which were Corporate borrowing, Share transfer, Shareholder protection, Restriction and Directors. I don't want to say the same topics come up every year in case they don't this time but I worked off the basis that the same topics usually come up and I got lucky. I think covering the whole course is pointless as the topics are usually not mixed.

That post is reassuring but the Spring 2019 paper was horrific. Those topics would’ve maybe got you three Qs max

Law1997 wrote: »

CONTRACT

Am I covered with the following?

Offer and Acceptance
Consideration
Intention to create legal relations
Terms
Exclusion clauses
Discharge
Remedies
Privity
Capacity
Consumer Protection
Mistake
Misrep
Undue Influence


Is there anything here I could leave out? Thanks in advance!

You're well covered here, if I was cutting it would be one/some of ICLR, Capacity and Privity.

Law1997 wrote: »

TORT

same q, is this sufficient?! Quite worried about tort as its my last exam and might end up getting put on the back burner if im not careful..

Negligence
Trespass
Trespass to goods
Occupiers Liab
Pure economic loss
Nervous shock
Passing off
Product liability
Employers liability
Rylands v fletcher
Hedley byrne
Nuisance
Professional neg
Public authorities and state liability
Defences
Remedies

Anything i should include or could possibly leave out?

If I was cutting I would say Defences, Remedies, Public Authority/State Liability are less likely.

I would maybe consider adding Vicarious, Limitations or Damages.

Tort is impossible to predict though so it's anyone's guess here. Anything could come up.

Law1997 wrote: »

PROPERTY

Last post I swear. Is this enough?

Treasure trove etc
Registration
Succession
Co ownership
Adverse P
Family property
Licences
Land lord and tenant
Easements

Thanks!

You are 100% covered here. I had similar to you last sitting but did mortgages and didn't do landlord/licences.

Law1997 wrote: »

Thanks! I’ve covered everything else except liberty.

not doing liberty either

Any kind soul willing/able to share a grid for Contract and/or equity?
Have nothing to offer in exchange, except thanks, but it might bring you good luck.

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Considering that section is now pretty much gone I wouldnt be losing sleep over it.

Now I passed Constitutional years ago but I don't see why he couldn't throw a general right to life q on the paper (think like Pretty v UK and a right to death style q) instead. I have no idea if a question like that has ever come up?

I would focus more on that list of cases posted a few pages back, the year I did it three of those cases from his talk all came up as separate questions!

There was a really strange question a few years back I think on right to life and when you read the paper it was phrased as a man wanting to die....really hoping something like that doesn't come up would really throw me.

Gonna focus on those 3 areas and then about 5/6 others, that should be grand, really banking on them being separate questions

iamanengine wrote: »

Right, this is my 3rd crack at Tort. Last two times I didn't cover enough and couldn't answer 5 Qs.

So this time, I'm covering

Negligence
Trespass to Person
Nuisance/Rylands/Land
Passing Off
Products
Economic Loss/Negligent Misstatement
Nervous Shock
Occupiers
Vicarious
Damages
Defamation
Limitations
Res Ipsa
Animals/Fire
Professional Negligence
Concurrent Wrongdoers

Surely, SURELY, I am well covered here? If I can't answer 5 Q's this time I might cry

Feel your pain, Covered pretty much the above and missed out by three marks. Appealed to no avail.
Found it the most stressful of the exams tbh.
I think you should be covered on the above. However, I would throw in Products liability as a back up. Apologies if it is on your list and I have misread it.

Could some kind soul please share the topics that came up for Equity in March 2019?

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional

My grid is telling me Interpretation came up last sitting but I'm looking at the paper here and it doesn't look like it did come up?

Probably a banker to come up this sitting if it wasn't up last time, would be unusual for it not to come up 3 sittings in a row

It didn’t come up last sitting. I am pretty sure it may come for this sitting fingers crossed.
Would you know what was q8 from last sitting?

iamanengine wrote: »

Excellent. I think my grid put down the Art 45 question as Interpretation for some reason. We might be in luck!

Q8 was Freedom of Exression v Privacy

Thanks for that, that’s what I thought freedom of expression but the injunction part was giving me some doubt

Equity

Anyone have notes on specific performance with a focus on contracts for personal services? It's only covered briefly in my manual and seems to be the main ask in questions on the topic

I have notes to swap in exchange

user115 wrote: »

Equity

Anyone have notes on specific performance with a focus on contracts for personal services? It's only covered briefly in my manual and seems to be the main ask in questions on the topic

I have notes to swap in exchange

Below is what I have on that..

C. Contracts Requiring Supervision
This involves contracts requiring supervision where a party performs an ongoing activity. E.g. singing in a theatre, employing a porter for an apartment block, building and repairing.
1. Contracts to Build/Repair
• Wolverhampton Corp. v Emmons: Romer LJ. set out three conditions to be satisfied in order to establish an entitlement to an order of SP in respect of a contract to build/repair:
 Work in question must be defined in sufficient clarity
 Damages must be inadequate
 The Defendant must be in possession or entitled to possession to the land where the work is to be done
2. Contracts for Personal Services or Carrying on Business
• A contract for personal services creates an employer/employee relationship.
• McCutcheon states “there is near universal reluctance” to order the SP of a contract for personal services due to: (i) the degree of court supervision; and (ii) courts will not compel a person to work for another where their relationship of trust and confidence no longer exists.
• Fry J. in De Francesco v Barnum remarked that ‘courts should be cautious about making an order for SP where it is a contract for a personal service in case they turn a contract for service into a contract for slavery.’
• Giles v Morris- courts reluctant to order SP when relationship of mutual trust/confidence has broken down
• Hills v CA Parsons- Denning: no justification for denying injunction considering confidence retained by the employer in the ability of the claimant
• Carroll v Dublin Bus: obiter comments were expressing doubt over whether a court had the jurisdiction to order the specific performance of a contract for employment. Court concluded they possibly could but only if no difficulties would arise as a result of the order.
• This was then applied in Ahmed v HSE. Despite the fact that relationship of trust and confidence still existed between the parties, the court refused to order specific performance of the contract of employment because there was potential for certain issues to arise as a result of the order and as the court could not foresee what these issues would be, they refused to order SP.
• While courts are reluctant to make orders that force a person to work with another, they have enforced orders for person NOT to work with anyone else:
 Lumley v Wagner – D agreed to sing at P’s theatre (positive obligation) and nowhere else (negative obligation), however P attempted to go sing at another theatre for a larger fee. Court granted injunction but noted D could never be forced to honour the positive obligation.
 Warner Bros v Nelson- Betty Davies agreed to act for WB and not anyone else for 2 years- only negative obligation can be enforced with SP
• Keep Open Clauses – required to stay open for certain hours
 Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarket - granted an int. injunction compelling the defendant to continue trading in the plaintiff shopping centre during normal business hours.