Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I should have said not to post on this forum – I don’t always look on ‘Latest Topics’ forum.
It would be safer for you to post on Ask ACCA Tutor Law Forum.
OK?
“I am thinking of giving this exam next month and I am really worried as this whole subject is based entirely on articles which are really hard to remember. Also do you have any tips how to remember the articles?”
Let me ask you … What are you gaining by worrying? Do you feel better? Is your worry preventing you from constructive studies?
From my own experiences, to worry is a distraction and is utterly unhelpful!
I’m not sure to what ‘articles’ you refer. The subject of law, whether it be English Law or Global Law, (or, indeed, any other variant) is VAST. So stop worrying about the sheer volume of the subject – you are NOT expected to know the entire World of Global Law and certainly not between now and next month!.
How to study? Constant repetition! Time and time again, go through the course notes, listen to the lectures. But, really importantly, practice, practice, practice questions from the revision kit. It’s a 2 hour journey simply to read (not try to learn, just read) the course notes. Where there’s a particular area in the notes that you’re not happy with, watch the associated video and see if I have explained it more fully.
But then, 3 x 1 hour each evening, practice answering questions from the revision kit. First time through, you may only be scoring in the high 20s / low 30s. But try those questions again 48 hours later and you should be scoring in the high 40s / low 50s. Another 48 hours, you’re realistically looking at high 60s / low 70s. Do you see the underlying trend? And, if there’s an answer that you cannot understand, post on this forum again, and I’ll get back to you.
Maybe do every 10th question from the revision kit. Take a 15 minute break after each hour. Don’t write your attempted answer in the revision kit itself – write on a separate piece of paper. And go over and over and over those revision kit questions.
And – whenever you hit a brick wall, post again on this forum and I shall get back to you.
OK?
You next asked –
“also I have a problem in companies limited by guarantee and limited by shares. Are they not the same? because shares are themselves a guarantee right?”
The short answer to this question is – No, they are not the same!
By a l o n g, l o n g, l o n g way, companies limited by shares outnumber companies limited by guarantee by a factor of thousands : 1. Companies limited by guarantee tend to be companies that are formed for “a good purpose”. Charities, companies promoting the arts, health, commerce, friendship, music and education (to name just a few) would sensibly be companies limited by guarantee. The members of such companies face no prospect of making any return on their interest – they cannot by law receive any dividends or capital distributions from the company. Their only liability is limited to the amount that they have individually guaranteed. Therefore, in the event of such a company declaring itself insolvent, a liquidator would be able to raise only such amounts from the members as those members have individually guaranteed. There is no purchase nor holding of shares by members in a company limited by guarantee.
Shares are NOT a guarantee! A share was historically defined as ‘a bundle of rights’ that entitled the share-holder to, for example, receive financial statements, attend, speak and vote at meetings, receive dividends and distributions on a liquidation – if there are surplus funds after ALL creditors’ claims have been settled. They are a form of gambling whereby the shareholder buys the investment and then hopes that the board of directors can use the aggregate of those investments to make the company prosper and grow. That way, the investors may be able to look forward to the possibility of selling their investment at a profit.
Hello Laiba
That’s a lot of questions that you have asked here! I’ll take them one at a time 🙂
“where does these notes are made from? are they made from bpp or from study hub? Because they are detailed and really helpful,”
Laiba – I wrote the notes. They were sourced out of my own knowledge of the law and heavily based on what the ACCA is looking for in the legal knowledge of an accountancy student. They are made from neither BPP nor from any study hub … but I’m pleased that you find them helpful.
Sayeda, thank you for taking the time to say thanks. And very many congratulations on your success in the law paper. Onwards and upwards – it will be over before you know it!
Best wishes for the future
Based purely on my own open admission of an ignorance of Scottish law, I imagine that I’m unlikely to be able to assist with any questions that you may have with legal issues North of the Border.
But, if you come across something that you don’t understand with reference to English Law (or Global Law) in your studies for the ACCA Law exam, please do not hesitate to post on this forum and I shall happily get back to you.
Well that’s a toughie! I’ve never ever been asked that before.
I really don’t know how accurate my next observation is … but I imagine that there’s not a whole lot of difference between English Law and Scottish Law. I do know that the law of property is different in Scotland when compared with English property law. But, having said that, there’s not a lot of emphasis on property law in the English syllabus.
On the strength of admittedly limited knowledge, I would suggest that English Law variant would be the choice for you.
I hope that helps
Because OpenTuition is entirely independent, concentrates on topics which are most likely to be examined, stays up-to-date with syllabus changes (syllables?) unlike printed text books, and has a track record of well-above-average success in all of the ACCA (and CIMA) papers for which we provide FREE tuition material.
(As well as providing the service of an ‘Ask ACCA Tutor’ forum (as well as the CIMA equivalent))
Is that enough for you?
That’s great, well done.
For any future posts, will you please restrict your postings to the relevant thread heading. For example, there can be no other student that is troubled by something in loan capital that is also at all interested in your exam result.
Different topic? Then a different thread.
But, well done again and well deserved.
Which other exams have you already passed?
The general advice from ACCA is to take the exams in their sequence ie take the next one that is listed after the law paper – so performance management and then taxation.
Hope that helps.
And don’t forget to let me know your law result!
No, but bear it in mind for your next post.
Is 5/6 of the contract price not ‘substantially all’? If not, what amount would qualify as ‘substantially all’ in your mind?
I think that the Court would look at option 3 and agree, yes, the cost of demolition and reconstruction would be grossly disproportionate to the loss of amenity involved so we’re not going to order going down that route. However, Athena has not been provided with the wall that she asked for so should be entitled to some compensation. Panagiotis has rendered substantial performance so is entitled to expect substantial payment. And Athena should not be expected to pay the full contract price.
I think that, because of option 3, the Court arrives at options 1 and 2.
OK?
I gathered – there was a clue in the first option. “The wall is only 5/6…..”
This is worthy of a new thread. It doesn’t fit into a thread titled ‘loan capital’. 🙁
OK!
Dissolve the partnership! If the general partner says ‘I’m taking 95% from now on and you lot can work 16 hours per day 7 days a week’, apart from telling the general partner where to go, you’d dissolve the partnership.
OK?
No, Panagiotis would be paid pro rata ie if the wall is only 90% as tall as it should be, he’d get 90% of the contract price.
There is a limit on the liability OF THE LIMITED PARTNERS! So all partners are liable but some are more liable than others (with apologies to George Orwell and his epic novel Animal Farm)
OK?
Yes. But we’re looking specifically at the rights of the frustrated, unpaid debenture holders.
Shareholders and directors probably don’t want to go down that route!
Thank you Vish and many congratulations on passing your final exam. Thank you also for your donation 🙂
All the very best of good fortune in your future career
Each in turn:
1) This is clearly incorrect. If there are no ‘distributable profits’ then the preference shareholders will probably discover that the directors fail to propose a preference dividend. Even though a dividend is not paid, for it to be ranked as a liability, it must as a minimum be declared … but then not paid. In addition, although most preference shares are classed / issued as ‘cumulative preference shares’ it is possible to issue preference shares that are not ‘cumulative’. The expression ‘cumulative’ tells us that, where in any particular year the preference dividend is not paid (even though it has been declared), the unpaid dividend from one year will roll up into subsequent years when hopefully there will be sufficient distributable profits to finance the accumulated dividends.
2) According to legislation, dividends may only be financed by ‘accumulated realised profits less accumulated realised losses’. Thus it can clearly be seen that accumulated losses from earlier years must be taken into account when calculating the distributability of this year’s profits.
3) It is the one of jobs of shareholders in general meetings to approve the dividend proposed by the directors. It’s part of the ‘ordinary business’ of an AGM. It IS possible (although I’ve never heard of it happening!) that the attending and voting members at an AGM may approve a dividend LOWER than that proposed by the directors. But the dividend approved cannot be greater than the dividend proposed by the board.
4) the depreciation charged on the increased amount of the revalued asset is treated as a realised profit when computing ‘distributable profits’.
So, in summary, the correct answer should be option 3.
Well done
Zainab, sorry, but this should be on a new thread!
Taking each of the 4 possibles in turn:
1) True. The clue is in the wording. Remember, we’re talking about ‘wrongful’ dismissal suggesting that there is something ‘wrong’ in the form of the dismissal. And dismissal without giving ‘proper notice’ is clearly ‘wrong’! Therefore the statement is true.2) For wrongful dismissal, the period of employment is irrelevant. Thus this statement is incorrect!
3) ‘Dismissal without justifiable reason’ follows the same reasoning as option 1) above. There’s not a proper reason for the dismissal and therefore the dismissal is wrongful. So the statement is not incorrect and is therefore not the answer to the stem question.
4) Same as option 2), it is correct that there is no minimum period of employment requirement. In cases of wrongful dismissal, period of employment is irrelevant.
So, in summary, your recollection about ‘2 years’ is incorrect. In fact, NO minimum period of employment is required. So the answer is NOT option 4). It’s option 2)! (Phew, that was lucky!)
OK?
