OpenTuition.com Free resources for accountancy students
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | ACCA , CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
View ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
February 11, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Mike your delivery is full of sunshine. Thank you ?
February 11, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Thank you! ( not a question)
February 11, 2017 at 3:18 pm
Thanks for that vote of confidence?
February 11, 2017 at 3:19 pm
Thanks! (not a question)
March 12, 2015 at 6:50 pm
In the case of Photo Productions v Securicor Transport
Although there was an exclusion clause in the contract… shouldn’t Securicor be Liable since it was due to Negligent on behalf of its Employee?
Thanks in Advance.
March 13, 2015 at 12:37 am
What did the exclusion clause say? It said something that had the effect of protecting Securicor from liability for loss “no matter how caused”
Now, how much more comprehensive could that be? “No matter how caused” seems to me to cover ALL possibilities
The answer to your question is “No, Securicor should not be liable!
As an additional matter, if you expect me (or any oher tutor) to answer your questions, you would be well advised to post your question on the “Ask the Tutor” page. It was only by luck that I saw this post
March 13, 2015 at 2:00 am
Before your reply i listened again to the Lecture and got my answer …..but to be sure i awaited your confirmation 🙂
& as per usual… amazing Lecture!
NOTED! i shall post my Queries to the forum next time.
March 13, 2015 at 2:19 am
Sabeen Mehdi says
March 3, 2015 at 10:24 pm
Enjoying your knowledge of LAW and the way in which they are delivered.
I did share your pronunciation and comments of Demurrage with my colleagues.
We are in the UK working for old British Steel near the coast, our vessels do incur lots of Demurrage charges which I process daily.
Think I shall remember that case 🙂
March 3, 2015 at 11:51 pm
It’s good, isn’t it, when it all comes to life!
January 9, 2015 at 8:19 am
An exclusion for fundamental breach is not possible in the case of consumer contracts?
Can you please explain following point in detail, i’m having problem understanding it
Any ambiguity will be read strictly against the party seeking to rely on it.
January 9, 2015 at 10:22 am
In a commercial contract it IS possible to exclude liability for fundamental breach / total non-performnce (the Suisse case and Photoproductions v Securicor)
Where one party is seeking to rely on an exclusion clause, there is no flexibility applied by the Courts in their interpretation of the extent of applicability of that clause. That is, it is read strictly against the party seeking to rely upon it
Better? Or do you need more?
January 10, 2015 at 6:25 am
What if the clause is vague?
January 10, 2015 at 6:28 am
If the clause has some vagueness?
January 10, 2015 at 7:10 am
If it’s vague then the Court will not be prepared to interpret any greater degree of certainty to the clause and it will likely therefore be ineffective
December 2, 2014 at 7:15 pm
December 2, 2014 at 7:27 pm
November 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm
photoprodctions v securicor. seems totally unfair that photoproductions have to use there insurance to cover for the security man that set the place on fire, yes the exculsion law does get them to wriggle out so by the letter of the law yes photoproductions have to pay but why is there not a golden rule here similar to re sigworth when he kille his parents, law states there he should get the money but the golden rule said lets use common sense. why was common sense not applied here?
2 parties of relatively equal bargaining power? Unfair contract terms legislation won’t apply. Can agree to do anything, so long as it’s legal!
August 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm
I am using bpp 2011 text book is that ok or do I need to get a more up to date text book
August 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm
You should be ok with 2011 text – just make sure that it includes treasury shares and the Bribery Act. If it doesn’t, there are notes in the course notes on this site to cover both those topics
May 6, 2013 at 7:35 pm
In the PhotoProductions v Securicor case, is it not implied that Securicor employees won’t do anything illegal – i.e. commit arson? I’m aware that the employee would be prosecuted by the state under a whole separate case, but surely this implies that the Securicor felllow could have helped himself to goods or deliberately vandalised the premises and Securicor would STILL not be liable?
August 13, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Hi, you’re looking a bit too deep into this! Just be aware that it IS possible to exclude liability for total non-performance
March 13, 2013 at 10:39 pm
what is the films ? please give me the exact name so i will some images
thanks for your help..
thanks for the All of the free lectures as really good way of teaching i am really happy after getting it.
August 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm
If you look at the back of the course notes, you’ll find cases listed in “categories” I believe there’s a list of film cases including Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas, re F G Films, Gardner v Sevenoaks,
January 28, 2013 at 7:11 pm
thank you very much, it was helpful lecture
November 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm
im ejoying the lessons through lectures thank you
May 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OpenTuition is a multi-award winning website, providing accountancy students throughout the world with the resources they need to study for the major … Learn more