*** F4 December 2011 Exam was: Post your comments and vote in Instant Poll ***

doctrine of separate legal entity i mean the 9a

overall the paper was ok however i did not attained some questions well and open tuition tips was not of great help…corporate governance came out last year…i was surprised by this and agency law…

overall paper was quite fair, had left me with the spare time because I did not know how to answer Q4 express, implied and apparent authority.

The paper was fair and balance. Q9a was on separate legal entity and q9b lifting the veil of incorporation.

how about the f4(glo) paper?

Global version:
1. Arbitration process and advantages and disadvan.
2. express authority, implied , apparent
3. Explain withdrawal, revocation , rejection
4. Preservasion of the goods
5. Ordinary shares, preference shares
6. chairman, board of directors, managing directors, non-executive directors, shadow directors,
7. dont remember
8. scenario: there was a guy, Aldo and he supplied the bottles to Greek customer. Aldo made a special bottles for him and packed them. Contract was based on EXW (ex work). Greek arranged the carrier who delivered the goods for him, but when the bottles came in, they were destroyed and contaminated.
The question was to advise Aldo and Greek for their obligations and liabilities.
9. a
There was a guy (supplier) who went with contract with his friend, but when the contract was made supplier found that his friend’s company is insolvent. Question was to advise supplier.
b. there was a guy who hired someone and made a notice in the contract that in case he would like to set up his own business he can not solicit the same customers.

10. There was an accountant who was asked by some guy to advise on the following issues: he had two activities, one legally, the second illegal. Accountant advised him to buy golf club (or whatever it was) and therefore the money from illegal activity will be go. Moreover accountant became a financial director.
There was a third guy Lol (LOL:)) who discover increase in profit but he thought that this is becasue of this new company who entered to them. The question was advise Lol.

What about question 10? Wat did u guys put lol should do? I did put that there’s fradulent dealing in that one. I did expect agency to come out two following simester.grrrr

I started the question with the explanation what is money laundering and as a part of analysing I stated that accountat and this other guy were guilty of fraudelent behavior. I have added that financial director can be disqualified for that for 15 years under CDDA (1986).
As regard the core answer , I have answered that he should double check the accounts and if he discovered this illegal source he should react immediatelly, inform the board of directors etc. He should call 991 (:) ), of course I didnt answer that…. 🙂
capital statement is the document that should be submitted by the company to registrar companies during the process of incorporation, and it should include the number of shares, their nominal value, and i think it should also contain the number of members…?
there was not so much about that in the book, but i think it was already appeared on the past papers….

The UK Variant was alot easier than past papers, only question that would have caused a problem was question 7,

Part a was about Intention as they guy was friends with the person he was entering into a contract with, part B definately lifting of the veil as per Gilford Motor cars

F4 was the easiest among the papers i wrote. attempted all questions even though i went off on q9. it was abot formation of a limited company, it being a separate legal entity, salomon vs salomon. but i took it as a principal agent relationship. Only realised i was not attacking it right when i have consumed 15 minutes of my time.
hope i can scramble a pass there though

I agree Q9:A was about separate legal entity and limited liability – but I also included in my answer that the friend who made the agreement and then made the contract in his companies name rather than his personal name may have been guilty of misrepresentation.

i.e. the contract between companies may have been sound and his liabilities may have been limited because of his incorporation – but if he induced the contract with a representation that the contract would be entered into personally and then did not incorporate that into the contract – he may have been personally liable for damages due to misrepresentation.

I don’t know what anyone else thinks about that?

@fame said:
In F4 Global version there was a question about olive oil bottles.

Quick reminder: A supplier was to supply bottles. The contract stated ‘ex-works’. B buyer arranged shipment of the bottles and when they were delivered at Buyer’s address it was clear that bottles were useless due to bad packaging.

Do you think the Buyer should pay for contaminated bottles (result of improper package)?

Yes!!! The question had a line saying that it appears that the bottles were poorly packaged.
So yes he’s liable for improper packing which resulted in both the contamination and the some of them being broken.

Well its over now. Good luck 🙂