Comments

  1. avatar says

    Mike, having started an expensive tuition-provider course and been bored to tears with the parrot-like recitation of legal terms and definitions, without any enthusiasm or real teaching, your simply brilliant teaching has turned my opinion of F4 on its head. Thank you!

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      :-))

      Good to hear that you’re now enjoying it. The pity is that now the format has changed, there’s no real need now for all the stories :-(

      Good luck with F4 when you get round to attempting it and, remember, the key is practice, practice practice!

      • avatar says

        I did think that too, but the stories make you interested in the subject and really grasp the meaning behind the various legal concepts.

        And interest = happy to study = success.

        At least I think so. :)

        Merry Xmas!

      • avatar says

        Hi Mike,

        I’m just starting F4 and saw this comment.
        So now the structure has changed, would you personally lecture this module differently? How so? And will new lectures be posted?

        As funny as your lecture style and stories are, I’m afraid of wasting precious time on hours of stories that I don’t need to know for the new structure of F4. Is there no real need to know all of these cases anymore?

        So I guess my question is … do you still advise to go through all of these lectures for the new structure? Any advice is appreciated.

        Thanks,

        Lewis

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        Hi Lewis

        The only thing that I would change would be putting substantially less emphasis on the case names.

        The principles illustrated by the cases are still important and if you can remember the story of the flick knife illustrating the principle that “goods in a shop window are merely invitations and are not offers”, then that’s fine. But without the story of the flick knife, if all you have read was the text within the inverted commas, would that have been memorable?

        I think not!

        In summary, listen to the lectures but don’t even BEGIN to think about trying to remember the case names

        Ok?

      • avatar says

        Yes, that’s great thanks. Good to know that I don’t need to memorise all those case names. But like you say the stories do help to remember the principles.
        Cheers.

  2. avatar says

    Hello Mr Mike Little,

    Great lecture videos, How i wish i started watching and listening earlier. But will try to just watch and listen to the ones on the topics i do not really understand or have issues understanding.

    You look and sound very enthusiastic and like you are enjoying what you do. Soo much energy as well for a man your age.

    you make the course sound interesting and makes want to watch, listen and learn more and more …

    For me, I am more relaxed, understand better and relate better when the lecturer is very personable and has an interesting personality, or at least during the course of the lectures or relations.

    Many thanks, keep up the good work.

      • avatar says

        I am happy you are pleased about the post.

        As for your last statement in your response, I apologize if the statement did not go down well with you, that was not the intention.

        I am just in awe and I like the enthusiasm and energy level your portray in your lectures.

        Which other ACCA papers do you lecture? I look forward to listening to more of your lectures in preparation for my future ACCA exams.

        Many thanks for all the hard work.

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        I was joking when I pretended to be concerned about the age comment. I know that I look to be at retirement age even though I’m only 40 – I’ve had a hard life 😉

        I’m the voice of F7, P1, P2 and P7

        Hope to see you there

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      If I enter into a contract and agree personally to perform some activity for you – clean your windows or mow your grass – and then I die, clearly I am no longer able to perform the contract so the contract dies with me.

      But if I enter into a contract to buy goods from you at, say, 400 items per month and, after a few months, I die BUT NOBODY TELLS YOU THAT I HAVE DIED. So you keep delivering and my wife takes delivery but then refuses to pay because I died 3 months ago and so she claims the contract died with me. In that situation, my personality, me a living human being, is not essential to the contract – you can keep delivering and the address where I used to live before I died is accepting the 400 units per month. So my death is not crucial to the ongoing validity of the contract. But when NOTIFIED of my death, then the contract will cease. My widow may herself choose to enter into a similar contract, but that’s a new contract between you and her

      OK?

      • avatar says

        sorry – I mean I stop being personal when you know I am dead, but I am still a person if you do not know I am dead even though i am dead?

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        Any contract you enter into is (presumably) valid. When you die, if there is still an ongoing incomplete contract which requires you as a living person to perform some action, that contract ceases because you are no longer able to complete your obligations (because you’re dead)

        If you enter into a contract which does NOT require you as a living person to perform some action, then the contract that you entered into whilst you were alive continues even after you have died …..until such time as the other party is NOTIFIED of your death. So it’s not the death that brings about the end of the contract – it’s the notification of the death

        Better?

  3. Profile photo of latoyah says

    ‘Once in a lifetime opportunity to own a handmade Persian antique rug for only £1,500 – cash only. This is a serious
    offer – the rug will go to the first person who accepts it – offer valid for one day only – today Saturday.’

    is this an offer or a invitation to treat?

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        No – this is an exception. The words “This is a serious offer” makes it an offer. It’s not the same as Partridge v Crittenden. There the issue was “Is an advert an offer for sale if it says “Offered for sale” and the Court said “No, it’s an advert and adverts are invitations” But with the Persian rug, the seller clearly says “This is a serious offer, valid for one day only” thereby making it an offer and not an invitation.

        Sorry Nicouzumaki :-(

Leave a Reply