- This topic has 74 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
- Posts
The december Eng variant paper is now available on the ACCA website for any one who wishes to look over it
Is marking of the f4 paper strict coz i didn’t remember the name of the cases n didn’t have time to finish the paper..n i went..blank on the question for doctrine of capital maintenance..
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 12
- ☆
Gutted, only 4 areas that I remembered by heart, sources of law, law of tort, remoteness of damage and measure of damages and dismissal, did I gain full marks on those don’t think so. Missed half of sources of law quesiton because of my stupidity, thought finish the question not til on my way home that I did’nt say anything about the Acts of Parliament, didnt mention anything about statutory interpretation, Argggggg.
Capital maintenance. no Idea so put somthing down like capital buffer that cannot be used to buy shares, pay dividend, must be kept for liabilities in case of liquidation.
Administration alternative way of winding up, no Idea how to stretch it for 10 marks, only core principle that I wrote. 2 marks if that.
Application of registaltion, haha stanley davis. anything else, very basic. so gain no marks I think.
Overall its a fair paper, but just not enough time to give it my best go, on the things that I know.
hope for a pass but who knows.
Director question said ignore the bribery.
Directors have a duty of not accepting benefits from 3rd parties too. Something different than bribery act in this context.- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
I agree Serra. We had already had a question on section f on insider dealing but nothing on directors, it could also include then removing directors by passing ordinary resolutions. It they wanted bribery they would not specifically mention in question to ignore it. It could be mentioned obviously as an outcome of accepting benefits
Thanks Mike for your free Online Lectures. They are very useful for someone like me who has no college. The pilot paper covered most of the scenario questions asked on Monday’s exam. I should pass scoring good marks.
Re Q8. Did Mike not tell us that an advert is always an invitation to treat unless it is a Reward (Carlill case, R v Clarke, Williams v Carwardine)and this is the only exception? Putting in “serious” offer is only a play on words. It was an invitation to treat which is why he could choose what “offer” was given to him. He became the offeree.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
just hope we should get a pass.. wasnt that tough a paper.. but all you guys comments are confusing me as to was it a director duties question or bribery? i went for the directors duty cause it clearly asked to avoid bribery..
fingers crosseddd!
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
I just checked the downloadable revision guide on here and one of the practice questions is the same as q8. Unfortunately I went down the advert- invitation to treat but the precise wording according to the practice question says it is an offer. That bit was only two marks but the rest of the question is identical as well
Lord Parker CJ commented that it did not make “business sense” for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement may find himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actually owned.
Mike, could u PLEASE let us know what u think of Question 8 and Question 9…
Offer OR Invitation To Treat???
Director Duties OR Bribery???- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
I thought it was an offer, the question actually had the word offer twice on it.
1. The first guy wrote in and letter didnt arrive till monday, so no offer as postal rule wasnt in contemplation
2. the second guy who offerd a cheque, no offer as advert stipulated cash only,
3. third guy offered to pay but had to arrange bank loan so no offer as the guy didnt give consideration for ali to wait.
4. the fourth guy paid 2K
DO YOU GUYS AGREE, NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT GUY NO.3 WITH THE BANK LOAN SITU- Topics: 0
- Replies: 7
- ☆
i took a look at the exam on ACCA website…
now, trust me if you are like me, those who say this exam is very very easy, in two years time you will look at these papers and think… ouch! 🙂 I got 65% in my exam about two three years ago and i no longer have a clue! lol.
@timcfo said:
I thought it was an offer, the question actually had the word offer twice on it.
1. The first guy wrote in and letter didnt arrive till monday, so no offer as postal rule wasnt in contemplation
2. the second guy who offerd a cheque, no offer as advert stipulated cash only,
3. third guy offered to pay but had to arrange bank loan so no offer as the guy didnt give consideration for ali to wait.
4. the fourth guy paid 2K
DO YOU GUYS AGREE, NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT GUY NO.3 WITH THE BANK LOAN SITUguy no 3 sort of had an option period, but it should be supported by partial consideration or something, if no consideration its not considered binding. so yea he had no right to legal action against ali.
And this is why i am not a lawyer… law always confuse me! Hope I pass anyway :p
I think question 9 has nothing to do with bribery – it’s a directors’ duties question. David Kelly specifically pointed you AWAY from bribery. It isn’t even clear that Fay was being bribed. She simply sold the secrets to lx in exchange for money – when information is sold for money, is that always necessarily a bribe? And, if it is, does that mean that the BPP / Kaplan / etc tutors are the recipients of bribes?
Hi Dierdre – I have done on the forum pages. The question 8 in the December 2012 exam is virtually word-for-word an earlier exam question set by David Kelly. It is, without a shadow of doubt, an offer which is being made. The wording “this is a serious offer”, “cash only”, “valid for one day only”, “first person who accepts it” all indicate that this is an offer.
Partridge v Crittenden is a distraction, I’m afraid. In that case, the words “offered for sale” were used but the Courts held to the principle that an advert is an invitation unless the advert makes it 100% clear that it’s an offer or it’s a reward case
Sorry!
Still on question 8, the third guy, Das, asked for time to arrange finance. Ali agreed to give Das time and that, apparently, is enough for Das to be able to rely on Ali’s word. The act of “having to go and arrange finance” is consideration and Das should therefore be able to rely on the contract.
I suppose one could begin to make a case about whether the rug was a specific rug or simply one out of stock. Given that Ali’s business “has been rather slow” it makes you wonder why he doesn’t simply sell “the rug” ( in the event, ANY rug ) to Bud, Cil, and Das ( only Cil inspected it and probably wouldn’t remember it anyway! ) 🙂
Will we get some marks if we treated it as an invitation to treat? i thought advertisement is always an offer unless an offer for reward, and there was no such case as reward here.
@Mike, will we get some marks if we treated it as an inv.to treat?- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
mike, when acca examiner releases his answers for f4 and f6
@mikelittle
Question 8? If the advert had been, “Handmade antique Persian rug – £1500!” How would the reality of the invitation be any different to the offer?
The first person to offer/agree £1500 cash would have bought the rug, if someone made a lower offer Ali would have been free to accept or reject it. To distinguish it as an offer the only difference I can see is that if someone agreed to pay £1500 and Ali refused which defeats the purpose of the advert.
It then begs another question:
If I offered £1400 for the rug and it was rejected would I then be able to accept his offer and pay the £1500?
And finally, if an item is on display in a shop with a sign, “Special offer today!” Would that be an invitation to treat or an offer?
- The topic ‘*** F4 December 2012 Exam *** Instant Poll and comments***’ is closed to new replies.