Forum Replies Created
- Posts
OK Guys, I decided to start from 14 march at 5pm uk time . I would like u to give me ur suitable time so in this way we will decide a time in which majority feel convenient.
nooo because syllabus is changed and some deletions and additions.
https://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/students/acca/exams/f8/syllabus/f8int_syll_sg2011.pdfMay be if you base is not strong. Generally for f7 , f3 is not necessary. If someone is new to acca and dont know the basics then he should do f3 coz its the basis for f7 and the p2.
Absorption costing is about absorbing fixed overheads. Variable overhead is a part of prime cost.
There is no difference , the profit and loss account or statement of compreshensive income are two name of same thing. Income statement or statement of comprehensive income or p&L a/c always realised profit is included.
Unrealised profit is shown in a seperate heading of OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME in order to clearly show which profit is realised and which one not. This qualifies the one of the characteristic of financial statements ‘ UNDERSTANDABILITY’. Hope this answer ur question!!If You are new to f3 i mean just started the paper, i will recommend you to first study KAPLAN because its short, to the point ans easy examples quoted. In that way you will catch the basic knowledge so when u have will have this basic knowledge on that base read the BPP you will be suprised that u can understand more efficiently and effectively as u can never have if u first time read bpp without reading kaplan first.Bpp is more detailed and then u will have more extra knowledge which is ofcourse LIFE SAVING in exam hall and also a strong base for higher level papers.
Nothing imported but published in pakistan and really we cant trust due to significant amount of corruption.
Every thing is revelant. You should have f3 knowledge on your finger tips before commencing f7.
please can u calculate the standard margin. all problem i have in this. i am calculating this way is it correct.
selling price 16
material (144/35)
labour (4)
voh (1.2)
contribution 6.69$Partners? authority is very similar indeed to agents? authority, being that each partner has either:
. Actual/ express authority
· Implied authority
· Ostensible/ apparent authority.A partner described as managing partner (or similar) has implied authority to bind the firm without limits.
If a third party makes a deal with a partner on behalf of the partnership, they are entitled to believe that this partner had the right to bind the partnership in that contract.Express authority
when the principal/agency relationship is established, the agent is instructed as to what particular tasks are required to be performed and is informed of the precise powers given in order to fulfil those tasks. If the agent subsequently contracts outside of the ambit of their express authority then they will be liable to the principal and to the third party for breach of warrant of authority.
For example an partner in the partnership may be given the express power by the other partners to enter into a specific contract . In such circumstances all the partners would be bound by the subsequent contract, if the partner breach this authority then still all partners are liable in unlimited partnership.
Implied authority
This refers to the way in which the scope of express authority may be increased. Third parties are entitled to assume that agents holding a particular position have all the powers that are usually provided to such an agent. Without actual knowledge to the contrary they may safely assume that the agent has the usual authority that goes with their position.
In Watteau v Fenwick (1893) the new owners of a hotel continued to employ the previous owner as its manager. They expressly forbade him to buy certain articles including cigars. The manager, however, bought cigars from a third party who later sued the owners for payment as the manager?s principal. It was held that the purchase of cigars was within the usual authority of a manager of such an establishment and that for a limitation on such usual authority to be effective it must be communicated to any third party.
Ostensible/apparent authority
This type of authority, which is an aspect of agency by estoppel, can arise in two distinct ways, both of which are similar to creation of agency by estoppels:
Direct Representation :Where a person makes a direct representation that a particular person has the authority to act as their agent without actually appointing them as their agent. In such a case the person making the representation is bound by the actions of the ostensible/apparent agent. The principal is also liable for the actions of the agent where they are aware that the agent claims to be their agent and yet does nothing to correct that impression.
In Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd (1964), although a particular director had never been appointed as managing director, he acted as such with the clear knowledge of the other directors and entered into a contract with the plaintiffs on behalf of the company. When the plaintiffs sought to recover fees due to them under that contract it was held that the company was liable: a properly appointed managing director would have been able to enter into such a contract and the third party was entitled to rely on the representation of the other directors that the person in question had been properly appointed to that position.
Established Pattern of Dealings
Where a principal has previously represented to a third party that an agent has the authority to act on their behalf. Even if the principal has subsequently revoked the agents authority they may still be liable for the actions of the former agent unless they have informed third parties who had previously dealt with the agent about the new situation (Willis Faber & Co Ltd v Joyce (1911)).
If an agent contracts with a third party on behalf of a principal, the agent impliedly guarantees that the principal exists and has contractual capacity. The agent also implies that he or she has the authority to make contracts on behalf of that principal. If any of these implied warranties prove to be untrue then the third party may sue the agent in quasi-contract for breach of warrant of authority. Such an action may arise even though the agent was genuinely unaware of any lack of authority (Yonge v Toynbee (1910)).I am just making more simple to understand ckseah points but i didnt understand what is ur 3rd point about.
if spare capacity exists= nil cost
1: if full capacity and can hire only ( no choice) = cost of hiring the outside labour
2: if full capacity and cant hire ( no choice) then= cost of direct labour+ opportunity cost + (overtime if any)IF u have choice in the scenario between 1 and 2 then we should choose the lower between them, the reason because to minimize cost e.g choice 1 is greater than 2, if we take choice 1 then it doesnt cause damage to us but the price we quote to customer will be high and u know customer will always want lower price. Hope its understandable 🙂
friendly speaking if you are preparing f5 then it means that you have passed f2 or done cat before taking step to f5 and should know about cost volume profit analysis.
if you have a scientific calculator theei you can calculate
suppose learning rate is 80% then you can calculate
b=log.8/log2
=-0.32192correct me if i am wrong. All i understand is that if we make that product we have a cost of 80,000. so we take from supplier that it should not be more than 30000. because variable is revelant and fixed is not. so if this machine can earn 50,000 so more we can pay on 30,000 is 50,000 so total 80,000 this revelant costing rule simply means company should not suffer extra cost e.g is we pay 90000 then it is the 10000 which the company will have to suffer.
