Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Sorry just seen a few pages back on the forums you have mentioned the 2018-19 rates are correct for this sitting. Wish i’d checked more thoroughly first before posting, sorry!
Can I also jump on the wagon? I’m doubly confused as i thought an ordinary resolution with special notice was 28 days notice rather than 21 and now 14? I must be missing something I imagine.
I have my exam in thirty minutes so I suppose I’ll have to go with my gut instinct if it comes up! 😀
Edit: I’ve just realised its 28 days notice to the company but 21 to the members right? Prior to the recent changes you mention of course
Hi Mike
Sorry to resurrect this issue but I’m determined to understand as much as I can while I have the fortune of your wise tutorage.
I am still confused on this point, I have just seen on another source “Unfair dismissal is a statutory claim made only by ‘qualified’ employees” and one of the defining points is the two years service point. This is also available here.
https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/what-to-do-if-youre-dismissed
You previously mentioned if the reason is automatically unfair, the length of employment is irrelevant but it seem to contract the above point of “You must have worked for your employer for a minimum period before you qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal at a tribunal.”
As such, how does this make sense? Is there any way for me to understand which offences are unfair at under two years and which would be the case over only. Do I just need to go back over the lectures?
Thank you
Sorry to hyjack this but my question is related.
Question:
In the context of the law of agency, an agent will NOT be liable for a contract in which of the following instances?Answers:
Where the agent fails to disclose that they are acting as such
Where the agent intends to take the benefit of the contract and does not disclose they are acting as an agent
Where the agent acts on their own behalf although claiming to be an agent
Can you clarify, Lord Little?
Hi Mike
This time it’s the Kaplan revision textbook. It’s in their objective test question question bank. Thanks for confirming!
What exactly do you mean? Preparing for the first chapter of the syllabus or course material? Preparing in what sense?
I’m not sure if you want me to link directly to the question as it’s on another accountancy (or is it cow? 😉 ) tuition website (not a patch on OpenTuition!).
I’ve just double checked and it definitely shows the correct answer is “The respondent” but it sounds like it was just a mistake. The site specifically mentions JUN 2019 SPECIMEN EXAM CBE Q20 Section A in the title.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion as my main issue I wasn’t sure what to choose if I face the same question in the real exam.
Thank you! It does. Although it may seem obvious I wasn’t sure if this illegal. I assumed so originally but I don’t recall ever reading this specifically so had to started to wonder if this was an acceptable normalised practice
Thanks for clarying this for me
Much better and I feel much more comfortable about this now! Thank you very much
Thanks MIke, sorry to clarify this is from “Mock Exam 1” in the 2018/19 BPP Practice & Revision Kit (Page 152). This is in section B, question 4.
I was very confused by the answer as ever example I have seen previously indicates if the member purchases shares at a discount which is not allowed they will be obliged to pay in full (plus interest).
If you do have the same copy of the textbook and wouldn’t mind commenting further I would really appreciate it.
And yes, sorry the company is Heave Ltd so a private limited company. Sorry still getting used to using the correct terminology 🙂
Thanks! I believe it was on the practice exam on OT. One of the questions that when I went back to review at the end I didn’t agree with.
I will post the location if I find this on the individual quizzes though.
Thank you. I didn’t realise the same offence was in both acts but now it all makes sense!
Thanks for the reply Mike, I really appreciate the response, but I’m still confused and I don’t think the answer to the question makes any sense. Please allow me to explain why.
The question asks which one of the following IS NOT a ground for a compulsory winding up. The test shows the correct answer is “two of the original three directors resigned seven months ago and the remaining director has been unsuccesful trying to find suitable replacements”.
To me, this indicates the other options ARE grounds for a winding up as they are not the option, If the question is which is not, and three answers are not selected, it stands they by must in fact be?
As such, it implies Albert being the member IS grounds for a winding up, and you’ve just explained this is not true?
Oh I don’t like the sound of that!
1. Ok – understood, but I feel the way these ACCA questions are worded is a bit tricky. I accept an auditor would need a resolution to remove private or otherwise but I Interpreted the question to be N/A not relevant as no such REQUIREMENT to have an auditor exists, therefore the requirement for a resolution didn’t exist either as it wasn’t mandatory to be in the situation to start with. To me, this is open to interpretation (but I would say that, right?)2. OK – understood, thank you.
3. I wasn’t happy about this one but I’ve had some time to think. Would it better me to think of the Newspaper advert as being an offer as to it’s nature, rather than an invitation, and therefore the answer ‘Invitations can never be accepted’ makes more sense?
Thanks for your replies! I shall continue to try to learn each little tricksy legal hurdle to avoid such mistakes.
Also have a second one I’m struggling with, I understand that the the condition of the number of directors in a PLC falling below the statutory minimum for a period in excess of six months is not grounds for the Court to order a compulsory winding-up (I’ve found the grounds that DO warrant a winding-up, but in the case of the above, via what means is action taken to address the problem described?
I guess I better hit the lectures notes again in the meantime…
