• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
    • BT
    • MA
    • FA
    • LW
    • PM
    • TX-UK
    • FR
    • AA
    • FM
    • SBL
    • SBR
    • AAA
    • AFM
    • APM
    • ATX
    • Dates
    • What is ACCA

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for March and June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

ACCA F7 June 2007 Question 2 Wellmay

VIVA

ACCA F7 past exams lectures Download ACCA F7 Q&A


Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. anisk139 says

    July 21, 2020 at 10:48 am

    Hi Sir, i wanna ask about the explanation about this question

    Question: ACCA F7 June 2007
    (iii) Tentacle is being sued by an employee who lost a limb in an accident while at work on 15 March 2007.
    The company is contesting the claim as the employee was not following the safety procedures that he had
    been instructed to use. Accordingly the financial statements include a note of a contingent liability of
    $500,000 for personal injury damages. In a recently decided case where a similar injury was sustained, a
    settlement figure of $750,000 was awarded by the court. Although the injury was similar, the circumstances
    of the accident in the decided case are different from those of Tentacle’s case.

    Answer: Tentacle has correctly treated the outstanding litigation as a contingent liability. The settlement of a court case after the
    balance sheet date may confirm (or otherwise) the existence of an obligation at the year end and would be an example
    of an adjusting event. This would then require that either the disclosure note of the contingency is removed or the
    obligation should be provided for dependent on the outcome of the litigation. However, this is not quite the case in
    Tentacle’s example. The circumstances of the claim against Tentacle are different from those of the recently settled case.
    So this settlement does not appear to have any effect on the likelihood of Tentacle losing the case. What it does
    (potentially) affect is the estimated amount of the liability. IAS 10 refers to this situation as an updating disclosure. The
    only required change to the financial statements would be to update the disclosure note on the contingent liability to
    reflect that the potential liability has increased from $500,000 to $750,000.

    My Question is , why we have to increase the contingent liability to $750000? and note changing it to provision?

    Thanks in advance

    Log in to Reply
  2. rhythm says

    June 3, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Can you explain me- why did you increase Inventory?

    Log in to Reply
    • MikeLittle says

      June 3, 2017 at 5:00 pm

      Because the goods were not, in fact, sold! Wellmay has the opportunity to repurchase and not all the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred

      So, if it’s not a sale, what is it?

      It’s a secured loan where the goods are the security

      That’s easy enough.

      But, again, if it’s ot a sale, then it must still be part of Wellmay’s inventory and that is why we have to increase inventory

      OK?

      Log in to Reply
  3. aliwright says

    December 5, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    very good

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in