OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
View ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
Sign up with YouTube premium to watch our lectures Ad-free and download them to watch offline.
Specially for OpenTuition students
June 10, 2016 at 8:56 am
So an invitation to do something for a said reward is an offer because of the reward.
June 10, 2016 at 11:02 am
Yes, as I clearly illustrate in lectures, if I advertise a reward for the return of my lost dog, then that’s an offer that anyone, anywhere in the world, can accept and by returning my dog they are then entitled to claim the reward
But, if at the time they returned the dog they had not been aware of the offer / advert, they shall not be entitled to the reward
Why am I writing this out when it’s all clearly illustrated in the lectures?
June 10, 2016 at 11:18 am
So sorry for the inconvenience, I did get my answer before your reply because of your great and detailed lecture, my bad.
June 10, 2016 at 11:15 am
Sorry, I got my answer.
April 29, 2016 at 8:05 pm
Because she was AWARE of the existence of the reward. Even though she was not motivated to take her actions because of the reward, she was nevertheless aware of it
In Clark’s case, the Court decided that, even though he may at some time in the past been aware, he had forgotten all about it and was interested only in saving his skin
I have no idea how the Court can say that! Not a clue! But that’s what was decided
April 30, 2016 at 10:52 am
Ok. Thank you
April 30, 2016 at 7:23 pm
April 29, 2016 at 6:16 pm
I dont understand.
In the R v Clark case, if the court says that all clark had in his mind was a way out, then in the william case, you could say that all the girl had in her mind was revenge. So why is she entitled to the reward?
April 25, 2016 at 9:19 am
Hello sir your lectures are very friendly and funny??
I don’t get it why a person should not be entitled to receive award just because he is not aware of it. I fully understand all examples of 1.boyfriend/ gf and gang, 2 R v clark 3. William v carwardine
Scenario – a person informs to police about a thief and person was not aware that there was reward on his head. He comes to know that there was reward later on but he cant claim it.
Question1:Is it a right to receive reward?
Question2:If yes, How does his right to receive reward get forfeited- He has done a public good with no selfish intentions even though he wasn’t aware??
Question3:what is the principle behind/ supporting it?
April 25, 2016 at 11:18 am
“Question1:Is it a right to receive reward?” – No, only if, at the time of your reward-earning actions, you were aware of the existence of the reward
You may actually be lucky and find that the person that offered the reward still pays you. But there is no obligation to do so
And if he PROMISES to pay you, but then changes his mind, there’s nothing you can do about it
Accept it, and move on!
November 11, 2015 at 5:45 am
Hi Mike#Smiling# you are the best,i was writing on Monday Financial Accounting here in South Africa,you have helped me dude in F7.Now next year i want to register for ACCA IFRS certificate,are you also teaching there?.Sorry to ask in the wrong forum am still new here.I pray that you may have many more years.
November 11, 2015 at 8:33 am
The first time I taught IFRS I realised that it’s no more difficult than F7!
Any problems you have, post them on F7 but please do me a favour……. please pass on our name to all your friends, colleagues and fellow students from college (or from anywhere!)
November 11, 2015 at 8:47 am
Ahhh!!! i have already done that mr Mike,and some were telling me that it was very helping.Ohk thank you for your advice.
November 11, 2015 at 12:36 pm
September 22, 2015 at 6:48 pm
Thank you for your support Sir. 🙂
I will keep in mind. Next time i will post on the said page.
September 21, 2015 at 6:06 pm
I’m a bit confused about the two cases (the girlfriend & boyfriend and that of the gang member). You said motivation is not important behind the act but that of the gang member case it is like motivation has been considered. Isn’t it? What is the distinction between the two cases?
Grateful if you can explain.
September 22, 2015 at 9:19 am
The case R v Clark still illustrates the principle that motivation is irrelevant and the awareness is the only consideration.
In R v Clark even though he was motivated to give evidence to save his own life, that was irrelevant in the context of whether he was entitled to any reward. Awareness was the big (only) consideration. And the Court decided that, at the time of giving the evidence there was nothing in Clark’s head other than saving his own life.
Therefore, at that time, he wasn’t aware of the reward and was therefore not entitled to receive it
September 22, 2015 at 10:47 am
I have understood it.
On another note, as i am doing F4 on my own your lectures are being very helpful.
September 22, 2015 at 6:38 pm
Good! And, if you have any further queries, don’t hesitate to post your question. However, let me ask you, please, to post your question on the Ask the Tutor page
December 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm
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!
December 23, 2014 at 2:27 pm
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!
December 23, 2014 at 2:41 pm
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. 🙂
December 23, 2014 at 3:03 pm
And the same to you too 🙂
January 24, 2015 at 1:13 pm
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.
January 24, 2015 at 2:41 pm
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
January 24, 2015 at 3:28 pm
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.
January 24, 2015 at 8:25 pm
You’re welcome and keep posting those P7 questions
December 3, 2014 at 9:33 am
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.
December 3, 2014 at 10:06 am
I enjoyed reading this post!!
(But what’s this about “Soo much energy as well for a man your age.”)
December 3, 2014 at 10:27 am
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.
December 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
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
January 22, 2014 at 10:27 am
Death- *Personal services * Non-personal services
Can u type and explain me in short please ??? I cannot understand this part of the lecture
January 22, 2014 at 10:43 am
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
January 22, 2014 at 12:33 pm
so does it means I stop being personal when I am dead (but I am personal until then)?
January 22, 2014 at 12:34 pm
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?
January 22, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Correct! Though I don’t know that I would use those exact words in a lecture!
January 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm
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
January 23, 2014 at 10:28 am
Wooww Sir !!!!!! Thank you for the time u’ve spent to make us understand!!! I understood 10000% 🙂
January 23, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Sweetypie (I can’t believe I’m writing to “Sweetypie”!) you’re welcome
November 25, 2013 at 11:12 pm
Great lectures making easier to relate cases thank you
October 6, 2013 at 11:34 am
i cudnt download this vedio..Please send me a way to do it or just mail me..
October 6, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Lectures are NOT downloadable
You can only watch them on line
July 15, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Please help me to decide!! is these lectures on the site enough to pass or i need to go for tution?
July 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm
I’ve just answered this on your earlier post
You must be logged in to post a comment.