- This topic has 107 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
<cite> @sangria9 said:</cite>
My thoughts:) :
Current outstanding balance is $10,000 ($9,000 to external users plus $1,000 to Ham). And Jo (? – who introduced capital only $1,000) can’t be granted release from obligations. So all three partners should pay in total $5,000 according to their initial proportion (60%, 30%, 10%). What did you answer and what do you think??Not sure if im right…. but ita said no liab in future debts and it was agreed so I checked her out while calc potential luability… even tho partners are severally liable… hmm I think im failing big time coz rest of the paper didnt go well either……
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
Right ! Causation and Bribery !! Because letting students pass is too mainstream. 🙁
I did the same as you Sangria £3000, £1500 and £500 but havent got a clue if it is right
I think that was quite tricky 🙁
<cite>@mojojojo013 said:</cite>
Right ! Causation and Bribery !! Because letting students pass is too mainstream. 🙁Bribery was new to the syllabus and hasn’t appeared and was in an article on the acca website recently so so was obvious to come up. You should have studied it. Easy 10 marks.
<cite>@umairarif92 said:</cite>
can any one tell the answer of question no.3??? (Causation, but for test, Reasons Doctorine of Novus Actus Intervenians not applying)It was res ipa loquiter
I completely left that
Civil courts structure my mind went blank I wrote about county courts, hight Court magistrates and supreme Court.
Q5 dividends what a mess
Question about directors couldn’t write muchScenario questions were probably the only good thing
Overall it was very hard #
<cite>@shaneegg said:</cite>
Same here- causation negligence? Cant even find that in Kaplan’s notes.
Bribery- didnt cover in any detail in class. Think i have failed…Same here I was so thrown by the causation stuff! Kaplan do not mention it at all!!
The bribery I tried to use common sense as couldn’t remember the brief overview of bribery we received.
Feel like I’ve failed too 🙁- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
<cite> @sangria9 said:</cite>
My thoughts:) :
Current outstanding balance is $10,000 ($9,000 to external users plus $1,000 to Ham). And Jo (? – who introduced capital only $1,000) can’t be granted release from obligations. So all three partners should pay in total $5,000 according to their initial proportion (60%, 30%, 10%). What did you answer and what do you think??🙂
well i set off 5000 external debts against 9000.Remaining loan of 4000 to be paid by the partners in their PSR. I then took the loan of 1000 of the partner to be contributed by the other two partners in the ratio 3:1 . I was confused about the liability of jo.To be honest guys today’s paper (F4) was fair. At least i am going to get something out of this paper i guess. But guys stop telling us your answers cos when u do mention the answers you make us cry please just keep them to yourselves until the results are out. We don’t want to start counting before the results are out.
Its better to be pre-prepared 😛
I didn’t do Q3 (didn’t know anything)
Messed up Q4 completely (so 0 marks)
Q6 and Q7, i wrote very less detail
So i think altogether it may barely be a pass 🙁About the last partnership Q.
I think Jo was only liable to the amount of capital injected (She was a limited partner)
The rest of the two would be Jointly and Severally Liable to contribute to the debt.- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
I can only agree with the comments here. It was impossible to answer all the questions within set time. I just sat P3 exam today which also has lengthy and detailed scenarios but still a lot less pressured.
I don’t think the P4 exam was fair at all.I am wondering if I would get any marks without citing the cases in directors removal question, amendments of articles questions and dividend questions. if it wasn’t for your lectures @mike I would have failed the whole exam. it was my first attempt. didn’t expect to perform really well. if I do pass n hope I do I will be over the moon
<cite> @whathaveidone said:</cite>
I did the same as you Sangria £3000, £1500 and £500 but havent got a clue if it is rightI think that was quite tricky 🙁
I did the same
Bribing
Definition?
bribing offences
Receiving
offering
bribing foreign official
corporate failure to prevent bribingDEFENCES
special defences available for armed forces
secret servicesCausation
Link between the chain of events which caused the damage or loss
but for
Causation by fact- physical link between the breach and loss, But for the defendants actions , damage would not have occured
Barnet vs chelseaNovus actus interveniens
Act which break this link
Natural event
Third party- knighley vs jones
Claimant- mckew vs hollandlEGAL RELATIONS
presunption
rebuttalDomestic and social arrangements
Commercial arrangements
scenario questions
8- a)Suffiecint consideration- normal contractual obligations
b) anticipatory breach
market rule- sue for extra cost only9 director removal- ordinary resolution
court order- misconduct, indictable offence related to company running( cdda 1986), insider dealing could be charged
2) secretary dismissal- summary dismissal possible, gross misconduct.
AOA not enforecable by third party , eley vs positive life company( no longer a director)
change AOA- special resolution
proper purposecourt wont approve unless
member competing
member defraudingevident member defrauding
10) partenr ship cessation
order- pay external debts first
parner loans second
members capitalprofit or loss divided as per agreement
total debt- 9000+ 1000
assets – 5000
debt left- 5000divided in the ratio
3000: 1500 : 500 as per agreementfingers crossed
<cite> @lfrancus said:</cite>
I found this paper (F4 UK) farely easy compared to F5 and F9.
just hope I can get I good mark out of it.Those were the papers i did i found the F9 was probably the easiest of all however, i doubt i passed any as ive been fighting a headache for the last two going on three weeks. so may have done one or two questions really good the rest i barely made out with.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
Thank you Open Tuition for the excellent lectures and notes!
<cite> @angele1 said:</cite>
neither did I see ‘but for’ rule… it is what?
I have forgotten all the past cases names, I wrote only 2 or 3… is that sufficient to pass?case names went out the door when i was doing all the ones i did remember didnt relate to what was on the paper.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
<cite> @sangria9 said:</cite>
My thoughts:) :
Current outstanding balance is $10,000 ($9,000 to external users plus $1,000 to Ham). And Jo (? – who introduced capital only $1,000) can’t be granted release from obligations. So all three partners should pay in total $5,000 according to their initial proportion (60%, 30%, 10%). What did you answer and what do you think??Dear Sangria
I believe your answer is not correct. Since the partnership had been formed under the Partnership Act 1890, it was a mere General Partnership. In a General Partnership the partners are fully liable of the firm’s debts and their liability is joint and several (apart from any provision and agreement between the parties).
As a result the 3 partners are fully liable for the debts.What is your idea on this?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
<cite> @avnisapan said:</cite>
Can anyone explain question 8 – removal of secretary/alteration of articles?Hey there,
a. The secretary can be removed from the board.
b. The secretary can be dismissed from his office without any notice.
c. The articles cannot be changed in order to force the director to sell his shares. Because in this regard, the individual has not the capacity of an employee. He is having the capacity of a shareholder (a member of the company) and thus they cannot change the articles. Changing the articles is not in the benefit of the company and shareholders as a whole.- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
<cite> @whathaveidone said:</cite>
I did the same as you Sangria £3000, £1500 and £500 but havent got a clue if it is rightI think that was quite tricky 🙁
Hey there,
Read my reply to Sangria. I think it helps you out.- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
<cite> @faranjamal said:</cite>
Its better to be pre-prepared 😛
I didn’t do Q3 (didn’t know anything)
Messed up Q4 completely (so 0 marks)
Q6 and Q7, i wrote very less detail
So i think altogether it may barely be a pass 🙁About the last partnership Q.
I think Jo was only liable to the amount of capital injected (She was a limited partner)
The rest of the two would be Jointly and Severally Liable to contribute to the debt.None was a limited partner since the firm was formed under 1890 Act.
The paper was DAMN EASY especially the scenarios. As for the Causation question, its answer was that the but for test is used to identify damages in this we had 2 cases Barnett vs Chelsea & Kensington where the patient died due to negligence of hospital but as he would have died anyway the defendants were not fully liable and 2ndly the Wilshere vs Essex where a child had been blind due to negligence but again there were other effects which made the kid blind.
<cite>@yaserrasa said:</cite>
Hey there,
Read my reply to Sangria. I think it helps you out.Thanks… I think this is how I interpreted it… no limitation of liability for any of the partners – so Jo does have to pay an additional £500 to settle the outstanding debts of the partnership (as well as her £1000 capital).
To be honest, I thought about this one for ages and then decided to go this way because the figures worked out easier (didn’t think the examiner would use an example with odd amounts).
<cite> @whathaveidone said:</cite>
Thanks… I think this is how I interpreted it… no limitation of liability for any of the partners – so Jo does have to pay an additional £500 to settle the outstanding debts of the partnership (as well as her £1000 capital).To be honest, I thought about this one for ages and then decided to go this way because the figures worked out easier (didn’t think the examiner would use an example with odd amounts).
Thats right as Jo is actively participating in the day to day activities of the business, he forfeits his limited liability status thus all partners are general and can be approached to pay debts.
i’d second that! @mikelittle
Your anecdotes in the recorded lectures were fantastic in helping me remember the ‘but for’ concept!
Much appreciated.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
A
<cite> @sanjayk said:</cite>
Bribery was new to the syllabus and hasn’t appeared and was in an article on the acca website recently so so was obvious to come up. You should have studied it. Easy 10 marks.apparantly the question of the Partnership was a Direct copy from Mock exam no 3 question 10 in the 2011 revision kit only figures different …
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.