OpenTuition.com Free resources for accountancy students
Free ACCA lectures and course notes | ACCA AAT FIA resources and forums | ACCA Global Community
ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
November 20, 2014 at 9:34 am
so basically under the literal rule in the whitely and chappell case he has been acquitted right? Not found guilty?
November 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Under the literal rule, but that only applies so long as it does not lead to an absurdity, and in Whitely v Chappell it would have been absurd to acquit the double-voter so the golden rule was applied and he WAS guilty
February 19, 2015 at 6:54 pm
Hi in the grid at the back I headed this as Area of law The golden Rule, is this correct or is the area of law something different?
February 19, 2015 at 9:06 pm
I would have thought, under area of law, you could have written “rules of interpretation”
I that not clear enough?
February 20, 2015 at 9:12 am
Ok thank you
February 20, 2015 at 9:14 am
So for the mischief rule what would you header this as the area of law
February 20, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Same again, “rules of interpretation”
February 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm
Thank you Mike
February 20, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Again, as always, you’re welcome
November 4, 2014 at 7:14 pm
hi Do have to remember the medieval Latin phrases that the lecturer seems to be putting great emphasis on? Also Is there a need to know syllabus references that is found isome study text like C2 A.
February 20, 2015 at 5:25 pm
No, certainly not study syllabus references
Re the Latin, you could be asked an mcq about which (Latin) expression best fits a situation
Devnie De Zoysa says
March 23, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Dear respected sir,
This lecture is to continued right.. I mean regarding chapter 3. Can I know where I can find the lecture of you teaching
> statutory interpretation presumptions
> aids to interpretations
> delegated legislation
Thank YOU VERY MUCH.
you are lectures are ACTUALLY TEACHING me what law is. Thank you
March 23, 2014 at 6:31 pm
Thanks for your complimentary comments
Now the bad news! If the lecture is not on the site, then it doesn’t exist?
None of the three topics that you have identified is a major area and should be easily picked up from a reputable study text
Apologies for not being more helpful
February 22, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Could you please clarify me The Narrow and Wide approach in applying the golden rule?
February 21, 2014 at 8:48 am
How can you delete comments on these threads to stop getting alerts?
Many thanks, Chris.
February 21, 2014 at 11:42 am
If you read the last line in the email says:
To unsubscribe this notification service, click here.
so.. just do what it says
February 21, 2014 at 8:43 am
Is theses videos downloadable please?
February 21, 2014 at 11:43 am
no, you can only access lectures on line
October 29, 2013 at 8:37 am
It would be my first post on OT. There is something i wanted to ask you before i could carry on with the lectures and notes. My question is basically i am going to sit for December 2013 F4 examinations(ENG) . I wanted to know as these lectures are recorded somewhere around 2011 can they be used as a solo source if i am preparing for these upcoming examination (off course the videos and the notes i am talking about) ? I have a little over one month remaining until the exam so please reply fast!
October 30, 2013 at 7:56 am
No – it is ESSENTIAL that you get a revision kit of past exam questions and answers and work through those. The course notes and videos are a pretty solid basis but you must get stuck into a revision kit.
And keep posting whenever you feel the need
November 9, 2013 at 10:18 am
I now have some other queries. First of all i wanted to ask isn’t past papers=kit? I downloaded the past papers and their answers and going through them. The only problem i face is sorting out the questions as i finish each chapter. Secondly, the Purposive Rule as defined in the Kaplan book (2013) has a reference of Sevenoaks RDC case law which in your course notes comes under the Mischief rule. Thirdly, The Book doesn’t include Nosciture a sociis/ In pari materia. I just wanted to know that were these laws still included in the answers or is it ok to go with the rules stated in the latest book. Standing by!
November 9, 2013 at 10:27 am
Revision Kit contains many but not all of the past papers – so downloading past papers is certainly adequate.
In my view, the Mischief Rule can be interpreted as part of the Purposive approach / rule
Similarly Noscitur and In pari materia I seem to remember having read that they too are sub-elements of the Purposive Approach
September 12, 2013 at 2:09 pm
i am new to this and am i am listening/watching your webinars. Could you just confirm for the Cases print out what we should be putting in the Area of Law. Is this where the law is either Civil or Criminal? And what does the principle mean? Probably a very simply answer and i’ve probably go my knickers in a twist but if you could help me to understand it will benefit me going forward.
October 2, 2013 at 9:52 pm
I think it depends on the way you learn and how you intend to use the Cases Sheet. Personally I find it is better tostate in the ‘Area of Law’ column not only if it is civil or criminal, but also what area of the law. I then use the ‘Principle’ column to give myself enough detail to make sure I remember the case.
CASE NAME AREA OF LAW PRINCIPLE
Whitely v Chappell Statutory Interpretation Golden Rule used. Son murders parents over £10, Literal
Rule would result in him inheriting, clearly absurd.
This is admittedly quite a simple case, but that is enough (for me) to apply it in an exam question. I also personally find it does help if I write some details of the case, simply as it helps me to remember what happened. Then even if I forget exactly what point it is trying to make, I can often figure it out.
That is just how I do it, I would do it whatever way works for you. I should also make it clear that i am NOT a tutor, but did study law at university, and I found that this way helped me the best.
Brilliant lectures, the lecturer is very personable, and, for me, the stories do make it! I sincerely wish my law lecturers made as much effort to make the material memorable!
October 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm
James, thank you for this massive help.
Will look at this tomorrow morning and get cracking. Again, thank you!
September 6, 2013 at 2:02 pm
I just referred to my study text and they don’t have the ‘Whitely v Chappell’ case or the ‘re Sigsworth’ case as examples for the literal and golden rule. I’m curious if it would disadvantage me if I used the cases you mentioned and not the study text cases for the exam. Thanks.
September 6, 2013 at 7:29 pm
It shouldn’t disadvantage you but there’s no reason why you couldn’t use them as examples. If you want detail about either of the cases, check them out on google
September 7, 2013 at 3:34 am
Great! I’m saved from having to use those boring cases from my study text. Thanks again.
August 12, 2013 at 2:55 pm
The lectures are brilliant. Makes law more interesting than i ever imagined. Jus wondering if there is further lectures on chap 3 covering statutory interpretAtion presumptions and delegated legislations. Thanks.
August 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Hi! No, what you see is what you get! Statutory rules and presumptions in interpretation are not frequently asked in the exams. But, no, there are no plans in the near future to add further lectures in this area. Remember, we have to leave you with something to do for yourselves
May 8, 2013 at 8:17 pm
Statute Law only 2 videos explaing till Interpretation Rules.
How about presumptions, aids to presumption& delegated legislation? Dont we have videos for them?
May 8, 2013 at 3:40 am
Thanks so much for these lectures. The lecture is quite verse in his knowledge of these cases (which is rare in my region) AND THIS REALLY HELPS:) THANK YOU!!!!
February 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Due to the materials being updated the page numbers have changed for the cases – therefore I though I might note them as they may help others;
Whitley v Chappell Page 129
Gorris v Scott Page 133
Evams v Cross Page 133
January 13, 2013 at 5:57 pm
re Sigsworth case,
Dear sir, u mentioned the above case in Golden Rule, about a son asked for money from father n mother but were rejected. Son killed his parents. I checked up sigsworth case n it stated the only son killed his mother, not parent. Which is correct?
February 5, 2013 at 8:00 pm
The way I tell the stories is in a way that I hope you will remember and not necessarily precisely close to the facts! That’s not what matters in your situation. You need to remember principles – the cases merely illustrate the principles.
Is a mother not a parent? So what’s your grievance – was it only one parent ( the mother ) and not both as I tell it?
April 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm
if the mother was killed then the house would have gone to the father? so the son wouldn’t have benefited if the father was still alive?
November 17, 2013 at 4:26 am
Good point ! This forced me to research and google this case. I will quote the entire case just to save others time.
What i learned was that “Son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.”
There was NO father i suppose(Dead imo) OR the mother raised the damned son herself.
November 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
So …… is that wildly different from how I tell it?
You’re getting into way too much detail – but it’s good to see you developing a real interest in the fascinating paper that is F4
September 18, 2012 at 10:27 am
where is aids to interpretation & delegated legislation in lecture? these topics are skiped?
September 18, 2012 at 2:44 pm
@saudfiaz, I seem to remember recording Rules of Interpretation and a lecture on Delegated Legislation. Neither is a huge topic – could you not maybe read them for yourself from a study text?
January 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm
@saudfiaz, yes i have noticed that too but luckily i have my LSBF notes.
The notes are actually not set out the same way as mine which makes it confusing.
November 17, 2013 at 9:39 am
If they were set out the same way as your existing notes, there would be no point in having OT notes!
August 20, 2012 at 6:38 pm
August 3, 2012 at 12:56 am
Sir, do we have to learn each and every case name to illustrate the different rules involved, as in while answering any question do we need to quote anything from any cases that in past happened and relate to what we are dealing in present?
August 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm
@qasimraza, read the exam technique note on the site – for both F4 and for General
July 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm
I am a bit confused, I found in many other information on the internet about the case of whitely v chappel as the main example of the literal rule, and not of the golden rule, given that this the decision was literal and therefore the defendat was not guilty.
but I have also seen in other information treated as the golden rule. is there any reason it´s been treated like that?
July 22, 2012 at 8:41 am
@sherlyta, ya me also same problem……….Can anyone help?
July 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm
@sherlyta, The golden rule is applied when the application of the literal rule leads to an absurd situation. So, by applying the literal rule to Whitely v Chappell, Chappell would be not guilty. But that’s absurd! Clearly, it cannot be right that you can vote twice. So the golden rule is applied.
And that is how Whitely v Chappell can be used to illustrate both the literal rule and the golden rule
July 24, 2012 at 7:19 am
@MikeLittle, Thank a lot sir…….
October 5, 2012 at 11:54 pm
@MikeLittle, But surely you can only apply one or the other – “Unless it leads to an absurdity”. As the defendant was acquitted, the literal rule was applied. Had the Golden rule been applied, he would have been sentenced – If the presiding judge(s) didn’t treat it as Golden rule, how can it be an example of such?
I merely put that out in the interest of good debate, but like the others before me, I noted quickly it didn’t concur with other sources, and did feel the need to check!
The lectures are great by the way, they are a great supplement to my chosen study texts, and handy to listen to passively when my attention span is not quite up to sitting down and reading/writing!
Also, just a small point – Surely it’s the Companies Act 2006, not 2005?
October 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
@lukedavidizard, I can’t really follow your first paragraph, but what bits I CAN understand suggest that you’re trying to turn the law upside down. IF the literal rule had been applied, he would have been found not guilty, but that would be absurd. So, although the Courts will apply the literal rule, they ignore that rule in situations where the application of it would lead to an absurdity and in those situations they apply the golden rule which allows them to ignore the literal rule.
If I have said Companies Act 2005, I apologise without reservation. Of course it’s Companies Act 2006
October 10, 2012 at 11:26 am
The defendant was charged with impersonating a dead man to obtain an additional vote in an election. The relevant legislation made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’. Since a dead man wasn’t entitled to vote, impersonating him couldn’t be an offence. Thus a villain was acquitted.
The literal rule WAS applied, and he was found NOT guilty.
Now the way I understand it is that the literal rule DID lead to an absurdity, but the Golden Rule was not invoked at this time, because it had not been thought of, or developed far enough.
The first case to use the parallel doctrine was 2 years after Whitely and Chappell, in 1870…?
July 5, 2012 at 7:49 am
May 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Great, but where is the rest of Chapter 3?
April 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm
think you are doing a marvellous job.
June 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm
March 25, 2012 at 2:03 am
Ensure that you check your study text for the case some of the facts vary slightly from the original.
March 2, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Where is the lectures for Statutory Interpretation presumptions till end of chapter 3.Is it available…?
December 16, 2011 at 4:15 am
I didnt see any faults in this lecture, he was perfect
November 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm
This is nice
November 11, 2011 at 7:28 am
how can we should learn the case names?
October 27, 2011 at 4:59 pm
This guy sometimes gets the facts, and the outcomes, of the cases wrong! Check each one he quotes!!
October 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm
You are NOT examined on cases
The stories are ‘colorised’ on purpose
So they are more fun and easier to get the concept behind those cases!!
July 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm
not loading whats happening?
July 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm
check ur internet
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OpenTuition.com is dedicated to providing all accountancy students throughout the world with the resources they need to study for the major … Learn more
Please log in to get the most from OpenTuition, registration is free!