• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for March and June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

*** F4 June 2013 Exam was.. Post your comments ***

Forums › ACCA Forums › ACCA LW Corporate and Business Law Forums › *** F4 June 2013 Exam was.. Post your comments ***

  • This topic has 107 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 108 total)
← 1 2 3 4 5 →
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm #131381
    Accountaholic
    Member
    • Topics: 98
    • Replies: 67
    • β˜†β˜†

    Can anyone explain question 8 – removal of secretary/alteration of articles?

    June 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm #131385
    nupurkum
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 46
    • β˜†β˜†

    <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……

    June 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm #131388
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 1
    • β˜†

    Right ! Causation and Bribery !! Because letting students pass is too mainstream. πŸ™

    June 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm #131389
    whathaveidone
    Member
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 22
    • β˜†

    I did the same as you Sangria Β£3000, Β£1500 and Β£500 but havent got a clue if it is right

    I think that was quite tricky πŸ™

    June 10, 2013 at 5:29 pm #131395
    Sanjay K
    Member
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 3
    • β˜†

    <cite>@mojojojo013 said:</cite>
    Right ! Causation and Bribery !! Because letting students pass is too mainstream. πŸ™

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 6:11 pm #131404
    anny786
    Member
    • Topics: 10
    • Replies: 23
    • β˜†

    <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 much

    Scenario questions were probably the only good thing

    Overall it was very hard #

    June 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm #131410
    Joanna
    Member
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 4
    • β˜†

    <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 πŸ™

    June 10, 2013 at 6:36 pm #131411
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 3
    • β˜†

    <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??

    πŸ™‚
    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm #131418
    ibrahim lemani
    Member
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 6
    • β˜†

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 7:06 pm #131421
    Faran
    Member
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 23
    • β˜†

    Its better to be pre-prepared πŸ˜›
    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 πŸ™

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm #131425
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 2
    • β˜†

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 7:21 pm #131426
    shahz20
    Member
    • Topics: 2
    • Replies: 19
    • β˜†

    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

    June 10, 2013 at 8:01 pm #131434
    thomas
    Member
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 21
    • β˜†

    <cite> @whathaveidone said:</cite>
    I did the same as you Sangria Β£3000, Β£1500 and Β£500 but havent got a clue if it is right

    I think that was quite tricky πŸ™

    I did the same

    Bribing

    Definition?
    bribing offences
    Receiving
    offering
    bribing foreign official
    corporate failure to prevent bribing

    DEFENCES

    special defences available for armed forces
    secret services

    Causation

    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 chelsea

    Novus actus interveniens

    Act which break this link

    Natural event
    Third party- knighley vs jones
    Claimant- mckew vs holland

    lEGAL RELATIONS

    presunption
    rebuttal

    Domestic and social arrangements

    Commercial arrangements

    scenario questions

    8- a)Suffiecint consideration- normal contractual obligations

    b) anticipatory breach
    market rule- sue for extra cost only

    9 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 purpose

    court wont approve unless

    member competing
    member defrauding

    evident member defrauding

    10) partenr ship cessation

    order- pay external debts first
    parner loans second
    members capital

    profit or loss divided as per agreement
    total debt- 9000+ 1000
    assets – 5000
    debt left- 5000

    divided in the ratio
    3000: 1500 : 500 as per agreement

    fingers crossed

    June 10, 2013 at 8:04 pm #131435
    latoyah
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 207
    • β˜†β˜†β˜†

    <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.

    June 10, 2013 at 8:04 pm #131436
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 2
    • β˜†

    Thank you Open Tuition for the excellent lectures and notes!

    June 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm #131437
    latoyah
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 207
    • β˜†β˜†β˜†

    <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.

    June 10, 2013 at 8:28 pm #131441
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 4
    • β˜†

    <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?

    June 10, 2013 at 8:33 pm #131444
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 4
    • β˜†

    <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.

    June 10, 2013 at 8:35 pm #131445
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 4
    • β˜†

    <cite> @whathaveidone said:</cite>
    I did the same as you Sangria Β£3000, Β£1500 and Β£500 but havent got a clue if it is right

    I think that was quite tricky πŸ™

    Hey there,
    Read my reply to Sangria. I think it helps you out.

    June 10, 2013 at 8:38 pm #131446
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 4
    • β˜†

    <cite> @faranjamal said:</cite>
    Its better to be pre-prepared πŸ˜›
    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 πŸ™

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 8:50 pm #131451
    Ahmed
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 160
    • β˜†β˜†

    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.

    June 10, 2013 at 9:02 pm #131462
    whathaveidone
    Member
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 22
    • β˜†

    <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 Β£500 to settle the outstanding debts of the partnership (as well as her Β£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).

    June 10, 2013 at 9:26 pm #131468
    Ahmed
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 160
    • β˜†β˜†

    <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 Β£500 to settle the outstanding debts of the partnership (as well as her Β£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.

    June 10, 2013 at 9:27 pm #131469
    anuj428
    Member
    • Topics: 4
    • Replies: 30
    • β˜†

    i’d second that! @mikelittle

    Your anecdotes in the recorded lectures were fantastic in helping me remember the ‘but for’ concept!

    Much appreciated.

    June 10, 2013 at 9:28 pm #131470
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 3
    • β˜†

    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 …

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 108 total)
← 1 2 3 4 5 →
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options: Β β€œRead the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • amaanalli on Fraud, bribery, whistle-blowing and company ethics – ACCA Strategic Business Leader (SBL)
  • verweijlisa on Group SPL – Group profit on disposal – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)
  • verweijlisa on Group SPL – Group profit on disposal – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)
  • verweijlisa on Group SPL – Group profit on disposal – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)
  • nosiphoceliwedlamini@gmail.com on Financial instruments – convertible debentures – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)

Copyright © 2025 Β· Support Β· Contact Β· Advertising Β· OpenLicense Β· About Β· Sitemap Β· Comments Β· Log in