OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
Spread the word
If you have benefited from our materials, please spread the word so more students can benefit.
To help us keep materials up to do and add new content you can also donate
July 7, 2020 at 8:45 pm
For question 4, (which felt a little tricky) how is “in formation” not an acknowledged way? Isn’t it the almost the same as implied?
July 7, 2020 at 9:10 pm
No, not really. The three ‘correct’ options (necessity, estoppel and ratification) are acknowledged ways in which an agency relationship can be established
I could also have included the possibility that such a relationship could be established by contract and, I suppose, one might interpret that as creating the relationship by formation
But the question was looking to see that you had fully accepted the three technical, non-ambiguous, totally clear ways in which a Court (for example) might accept that an agency relationship did exist even though there was no formal agreement
February 22, 2019 at 8:32 am
The innocent third party will initially hold the principal liable but the principal will, in turn, seek redress against the agent for breach of warranty of authority
So, even though it might appear that the agent’s actions will be binding on the principal (and they ARE binding on the principal) the agent doesn’t escape liability to compensate the principal
February 22, 2019 at 7:00 am
Q1: As per pg 56 in the notes, i choose the 4th option but i dont believe i agree with the answer i.e. option 1
Kindly explain why option is correct
You must be logged in to post a comment.