Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Hi. Just be aware that with Williams v Roffey, the promise of an additional amount payable WAS enforceable. The reason being that the sub-contractor DID give consideration. That consideration was in the form of protecting the other party from facing penalty charges for late completion.
Now, back to Ami and Cis. Consider the timing of this legal action. Deposit has been paid, price and timing for the work has been agreed, work up to the end of February has been completed. All of these represent ‘water under the bridge’. They’ve gone. They’re history. Now we are facing a dispute about an apparent promise to pay a further amount.
When Ami agreed to pay an additional amount, what did Cis give in return? From my reading of the question, the answer has to be ‘nothing’. Going back to Williams v Roffey, Roffey says ‘You’ve got to finish – otherwise I’m facing the prospect of having to make penalty payments’. Putting in the extra work to finish on time saved Williams from having to make those penalty payments … and THAT was good consideration. Therefore the additional sum was payable.
But we don’t have any equivalent in Ami v Cis. No additional consideration. So additional amount is NOT payable.
You write ‘I’m can’t seem to understand why the first 3 are past consideration, as to me these were done at the time or after the contract was made, not before.’
Agreed. But what we are arguing about now is the payability of the additional sum. So all that happened before the end of February is past.
Is that better?
Maybe check out the case Williams v Roffey.
Here’s a link:
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/williams-v-roffey.php
If you still have an issue, post again on this forum
OK?
The ECJ is no longer paramount (as a result of Brexit) and so the English legal system is no longer governed by ECJ. However, although no longer binding on English law decisions, ECJ judgements are persuasive.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Page 9 of the English Law course notes / lecture notes are scheduled to be amended within a matter of just a few hours.
Thanks again
Mike
Jacob, it is in my nature to be as helpful as I can be when I see someone or hear about someone that needs assistance. So welcome to my history of ‘victims’
Sadly, on this occasion, I am unable to provide the answers that you seek.
1 – we are not ‘partnered’ with BPP. We have negotiated an agreement whereby students are given a 20% discount when they buy BPP material through our site. Otherwise there is no connection with that organisation.
2 – I don’t possess a copy of any Kaplan material. Nor, incidentally, do I possess a copy of any BPP material!
and finally ….
3 – generations of students in the past have found that the OpenTuition material (together with a Revision Kit from one of the approved publishers) is sufficient to provide them with a sound basis for a successful attempt at the Law paper without the need for further research into a study text, be it Kaplan or BPP.
And, of course, as always, should you come across any area of the syllabus or the content of the law material where you find it difficult to understand, please feel free to post again on this forum and I shall get back to you
OK?
Hi Daniel – I’m no longer involved with P2 / Strategic Business Reporting (sorry Steve for intruding on your paper!)
The original post from more than 10 years ago was asking (I seem to remember) whether the lectures were complete. At that time, there were still some lectures to be recorded and uploaded and the question was one of a number that were asking the same. Those questions are no longer on this thread – were they ever or were they on a separate thread? It doesn’t matter! And nor is it pertinent to your 2025 studies.
Any questions that arise on Strategic Business Reporting should now be addressed to Steve on the Ask ACCA Tutor forum
OK?
If it’s not registered within the time limit, the charge becomes ineffective and the debt ranks as unsecured.
OK?
When I used to lecture on FA and FR, it always struck me that DipFR could be attempted with a good chance of success when a student had a sound understanding of accounting. That understanding can be achieved using OpenTuition’s notes and lectures for those two papers.
Why not dip into OpenTuition’s material with a copy of the DipFR syllabus by your side and make your own assessment?
Hope that helps!
Thanks Jon, it looks like the South African variant could be the obvious choice.
You’re nearly correct Yonela. The ACCA qualification is recognised worldwide but, in order to be allowed to practice, some countries will also require you to pass exams in their own tax paper and their own law paper.
If you wish to practice in the UK, then you should opt for the English law variant. If you have no such ambition to practice in the UK, then you could elect to take the Global variant.
Of course there are content differences with the English paper concentrating more on contract law whereas the Global variant looks in greater depth at international commercial law.
Neither paper is any ‘easier’ than the other.
Personally I find the English variant more ‘fun’ but that’s probably because I’m a bit biased!
Hope that this helps but, should you need any more detail, let me know through the Ask ACCA Tutor forum.
OK?
Shekhar, I am not a happy bunny!
I too asked AI specifically about the Panorama Developments case and it concluded that the secretary’s authority was apparent / ostensible.
I then posed the question 2What is the difference between apparent and implied authority?”
Here’s the AI answer:
“Apparent Authority: This arises when a principal creates an impression to a third party that an agent has authority to act on their behalf, even if the agent does not have actual authority. It is based on the representations made by the principal, leading the third party to reasonably believe that the agent has the authority to act.
Implied Authority: This is inferred from the actions or circumstances surrounding the agent’s role. It occurs when an agent has been given express authority but is also allowed to perform acts that are customary or necessary to fulfill their duties, even if those acts are not explicitly stated.
In summary, apparent authority is about the perception of authority by third parties based on the principal’s representations, while implied authority relates to the actions that are necessary to carry out the express authority granted to the agent.”
Now can you please tell me why the Panorama secretary’s authority is not implied?
No, I’m definitely not a happy bunny!
Please do let me know your thoughts.
Good question! I think an easy way to distinguish between apparent authority and implied authority is to consider the source of that authority.
For apparent authority, this is where the directors knowingly allow an agent (here, a secretary) to act as though they had the backing of the directors. The authority is therefore derived from the directors’ actions (or inactions)
Implied authority derives from the position that the agent (secretary Dev) holds. So long as Dev’s actions lie within the scope of the range of actions typically taken by a person in that position, those actions would be acceptable under the principles of implied authority.
Does that make sense?
Megan – I’ve just reread my previous post. The ‘one more vote than 50% …’ does not apply to special resolutions. Because, of course, the special resolutions require a 75% majority in favour.
The principle is, nevertheless, the same. For a special resolution to be passed, the votes are counted and the votes in favour must be 75% or greater of the total number of votes cast. No votes, abstentions, absentees – none of these are included in the reckoning. It’s the votes cast by members present in person or by proxy …
I’m grateful for your post for which this is a response – it gave me the opportunity to amend what I now see could be a very confusing previous response of mine last time.
Better, again?
Hi Megan
In both situations (ordinary and special resolutions) the majority required is “one more vote than 50% of the votes cast by those who are present and who are entitled to vote and who do vote, in person or by proxy, in favour of … at a meeting of which proper notice has been given”
Is that ok now?
I believe that, in the accompanying lecture, I actually place the liquidator and the fixed charge secured creditors as joint first.
It’s a practical issue and I did actually come across it twice in practice.
Picture the scene for yourself. There aren’t enough assets in the company being liquidated to pay off the fixed charge creditors in full. So what’s a liquidator to do? “Here you are you lucky fixed charge creditors. Please accept all the money that I have been able to recover from sale of the company’s assets. Now you all go away and enjoy your payout. Meanwhile, after I’ve done all the work involved in realising the sale of those assets, I’m expected to get zilch for my efforts?”
Ask yourself, why would a liquidator do all the work involved in a liquidation only to be faced with a zero return for those efforts?
On the first occasion that I came across it, a client of mine was facing liquidation (I had only been appointed as the company auditor the day before and I immediately persuaded them that to carry on would count as wrongful trading!)
I called the liquidation partner at the firm where I trained and set out the issue – ie there would be no assets to sell and therefore no money available to pay a liquidator. Mr Brierley actually thanked me for putting the work his way even knowing that there would be nothing in it for him nor the firm.
The second occasion was where I was in court taking legal action against my former business partner. I posed the same question to my forensic accountant, a qualified insolvency practitioner.
He came up with the same answer – “Why the creditors secured by fixed charge, of course.”
“OK” says I. “So if there aren’t enough assets to pay the secured creditors in full, does that therefore mean that the liquidator gets nothing?”
“Oh, NO!” says my forensic accountant. “Of course the liquidator would be paid”
Now, you tell me – who gets paid first out of the realised assets? I’m happy to leave them as equal firsts but, if really pushed to name just one, I believe that I would say that the liquidator will always rank number one, unless they happen to be called Mr Brierley, the insolvency partner at a large firm in Manchester.
OK?
If you are 100% certain that you will not work in UK as an auditor / accountant, then I suggest that Global Law would be your preferred option.
And, when you hit a problem in your Global Law studies, post on the Ask ACCA Tutor forum and I shall get back to you
OK?
Lectures and notes are all up to date. But you must also make extensive use of a revision kit. And also ask on this forum when you hit something that you don’t understand
OK?
Well! Thanks for this! And, perversely, you are correct – it is all pretty fascinating 🙂
Again, good fortune in the future – I’m sure my colleagues further ‘up the road’ will be at least equally helpful.
That’s great news, and thanks for letting me know.
Did you come across many differences and would you be able to fill in any gaps in my knowledge – should I ever be asked similar questions in the future 🙂
Best of luck with the remainder of your journey
Read the course notes. Read, don’t try to memorise. Just read as though they were a book. From start to finish they should take around 2 hours. You could do that every evening for a week!
Watch the videos and watch them as you follow in the notes the topic covered in the videos. Each video is around 30 – 40 minutes long. Can you watch 2 of those in an evening? And, if you have 2 hours spare in that evening, read the notes again.
Having watched some of the videos (say, 6) open your copy of a revision kit (this you MUST have – 20% discount off the price if you order a BPP text through this site – click on the yellow box).
Now attempt the questions in the revision kit chapters that cover the 6 chapters in the notes that you have just finished.
As time moves on, read more notes, watch more videos, and attempt more revision kit questions. Attempt these revision kit questions over and over and over again and again and again. You get the idea.
DON’T write your attempted answer in the Revision Kit itself. Write on a separate piece of paper. That way, not only will each attempt be uninfluenced by your previous efforts but you will also finish up with an unmarked book that you could then sell through the appropriate page on this site!
Read the notes, watch the videos, endless practice of Revision Kit questions. Then attempt 2 or 3 of the online mock exams.
And, when you hit a problem where you cannot understand something, post on this forum and I shall get back to you.
OK?
The aspect of wrongful trading was introduced because it was too onerous to establish the ‘intent’ element necessary for a successful fraudulent trading action.
It’s the ‘intent to defraud’ that marks fraudulent trading. Wrongful trading could just be the result of incompetence.
Is that better?
Yes, you got it!
Although ordinary business does not need any notice period, that business will be carried out at a general meeting and, of course, the meeting will need the appropriate days’ notice.
Only once did I ever see a Notice of Meeting that said, amongst everything else, ‘…and to discuss those other matters that may ordinarily be conducted at a general meeting as ordinary business’.
I was SO excited!!!
Until I read on where it then specified ‘That is, the appointment of directors retiring by rotation, the reappointment of the auditors after their year of office has expired, ….’
OK?
A jury is comprised of 12 people (the accused peers) to hear the facts of a criminal case and determine whether, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty of the offence of which s/he is charged.
Jurisdiction is the extent of the coverage of the judges before whom a case is to be heard
The judiciary is the element of the English law that governs the legality of the various actions that the citizens carry out (where there may be some doubt as to that legality)
A judge is the human that hears the evidence about a case and then advises the jury as to the ramifications from a legal point of view. The judge determines the law, the jury determines the facts.
A trial is the event, in Court, where an accused is given the opportunity to justify their actions which are being complained about by the police (criminal case) or a plaintiff (civil case)
Is that any better?
