''Easiest'' FE1 Subjects

[LawGeek]

I just sat EU, Tort, Property and Constitutional for the FE1's and am
sure I didn't get them.

I am considering swapping EU with Equity for the next sittings. Is
Equity easier than EU??

[nilomu]

is that the first time you sat them??? think most people would sit
equity, contract, criminal and one other on their first sitting,
they're usually the easier ones. but then theres not a lot you can
leave out of either contract or criminal. each to their own but i
would have found it really difficult to sit the 4 you just sat in one
sitting!

[Brian Foley BL]

I would think that leaving EU, Company and Property over for at least one
more sitting is a good idea just to see how the exams "settle" in light of
the new Acts / Treaties for each subject.

Brian

GCD

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date: 10/10/09
06:39:00

[LawGeek]

Hi Brian

Thanks for the message. These are the first time I have sat the FE1's
- really struggle with EU and am actually considering swapping EU with
Equity for the next sittings in March.

Therefore the subjects I am thinking of sitting are Property, Tort and
Constitutional (all three again) plus adding Equity to the mix.

Would that be a sensible choice??

> 06:39:00- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brian Foley BL]

Sure. Honestly, in the absence of the "new" Acts, I (myself) just would
have tried to divide the labour and done contract and equity together (nice
overlap at times) and then chosen either EU or constitutional and then
either criminal or property, and then do the balance the next time...e.g.

Contract, equity, constitutional and criminal followed by EU, property,
company and tort.

But like I say, no-one really knows what effect the treaty / acts will have
on the paper and if one had the choice, I'd like to see a paper go ahead of
me first!

I would try and mix contract with equity though. Saves you time on estoppel
and mistake and other equitable doctrines we look at in contract. And
whereas proprietary estoppel ain't on the equity syllabus (but is asked)
having done it in equity helps (but we look at it anyway in contract). So
maybe try and mix equity and contract as priority 1.

B

[LawGeek]

Hi Brian
That's helpful advice. Thank you kindly. I am signing up for Contract
in GCD so I will see you on Wednesday night's!

Thanks again!

[Rose Marie]

Heya LawGeek
I agree completely with Brian in that contract and equity should go
hand in hand. There is nice amount of overlap between the two.
I've just done my first four: Constitutional, Criminal, Equity and
Contract. A few people had recommended those to me (including a few
lecturers) and I have to say I made the right decision. I would
definitely recomend that you do those four.

Best of luck!!
Rose

[Denning]

Hi Brian,


I was just wondering if it is advisible to focus just on three
subjects say company, criminal and equity? I work full time, and my
1st sitting was a disaster, as I left it too late to study by heart:-(

On Oct 10, 5:20 pm, "Brian Foley BL" <brianfole...@gmail.com> wrote:

[brian]

Sorry .Denning...I missed this post...

Honestly, I'd say "no" in the sense that I just think there is
something wrong with intentionally not focussing on an exam you're
registered for. Maybe the problem what was you left to late - to
study by heart? These (and any other law exams) aren't about that at
all. Maybe you're better to learn from mistakes, and give the four a
better shot. A lot of people work full time, and its really about
finding small (but consistent) pockets of time to get things done.
Really, once you get your hands on good nutshells and texts (up to
date ones!), you don't *need* lectures if you are the type who can get
that consistent work done. Some find the lectures help them focus,
but honestly...with a little dedication and consistency, you'd be
amazed.

If you want to talk about this outside of the forum, email me - the
address is there.

And who knew independent colleges were actually the administrator of
this group? :) I'm assuming, of course, there is some weird issue
with describing people as administrators, but welcome Philip Burke!

[brian]

Figured as much - I think (like i said above) there was some issue
with people being described as such!

I think, however, that my presence here seems to prompted the desire
for others to be on. Maybe you'd rather none of it?

Happy to not post again, if it just ends up breeding "gcd v indep"
malarky on here too.

B



On Oct 26, 6:03 pm, Caribou <clonr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Independent Colleges are NOT the Administrators of this group - it was
> set up by Padraig and myself and a few others help him moderate it.
>
> I did notice that Independent Colleges have changed themselves to
> 'Administrator' (which they are not) - however, i also note, that
> sometimes, if a user has changed their name on another google group.
> to say, Administrator, then it sometimes transfers to other google
> groups, like this. I'm willing to give Independent Colleges benefit of
> the doubt that this was the reason! However, i will be asking them to
> make sure it doesn't transfer in the future.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Orla Fitzpatrick]

no u cant not post! iv found ur advice invalueable! y cant we all just get along!!!!!!

[Caribou]

I agree - and advise from any quarter, professional or other wise is
greatly appreciated - thats what the forum is based on.