- This topic has 107 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
<cite>@yaserrasa said:</cite>
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.you are wrong, refer to case law sidebottom v kershaw. Once a director is competing or being dishonest in the form of the case scenario, the other members could compel him to sell his shares because its for the best interest of the comany. However the situation in the Dafen Tinplate case is unlawful
<cite> @anny786 said:</cite>
It was res ipa loquiterI 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 #
you are wrong about your “novus actus interveniens” answer. The correct answer is
Extra Damage caused by the
1. Claimant
2. Third Party
3. Natural event<cite>@yaserrasa said:</cite>
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?
No you are not right. she has the right answer. you are right in saying members cant limit their liability to a certain amount ( fixed amount) but they can divide profit and losses in proportion to their agreement.
If you have BPP revision kit go to question 72
hope it make sense
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 16
- ☆
<cite>@beatleb said:</cite>
That causation question was not a fair question! I looked all all my notes, no one mentions it anywhere……..not even once was that term used anywhere.Come on everybody. We’re trainee accountants and aren’t expected just to parrot back the text book – this isn’t A-levels. I’d not heard of causation before either, but it seems pretty obvious that it’s got something to do with the cause – anybody who said something sensible should hope to get at least a point.
‘But-for’ was in my notes and I remember it from a lecture I heard so there’s no excuse for point b), and they pretty much gave the answer for c) being that Novus Actus Intervenians means breaking the chain of causation.
I reckon the examiner wants to see if people are able to think independently and come up with something logical – it’s what we’ll be expected to do in the world of work anyway, plus he’s got to throw in some prizewinner questions to reward those people who read around, and not just one text book. There are no textbooks in the industry.Thoughts?
<cite> @vinai said:</cite>
you are wrong, refer to case law sidebottom v kershaw. Once a director is competing or being dishonest in the form of the case scenario, the other members could compel him to sell his shares because its for the best interest of the comany. However the situation in the Dafen Tinplate case is unlawfulexactly, the duty of fiduciary was in breach and with the help of a court notice and special resolution, the articles could me changed and in result compelling the director to sell his shares
<cite> @vinai said:</cite>
you are wrong, refer to case law sidebottom v kershaw. Once a director is competing or being dishonest in the form of the case scenario, the other members could compel him to sell his shares because its for the best interest of the comany. However the situation in the Dafen Tinplate case is unlawfulyes you are right AOA can be altered to force members to sell their shares in exceptional cases where
members are competing against the company
member defraudingwell said
<cite>@andreasmacfarlane said:</cite>
Come on everybody. We’re trainee accountants and aren’t expected just to parrot back the text book – this isn’t A-levels. I’d not heard of causation before either, but it seems pretty obvious that it’s got something to do with the cause – anybody who said something sensible should hope to get at least a point.
‘But-for’ was in my notes and I remember it from a lecture I heard so there’s no excuse for point b), and they pretty much gave the answer for c) being that Novus Actus Intervenians means breaking the chain of causation.
I reckon the examiner wants to see if people are able to think independently and come up with something logical – it’s what we’ll be expected to do in the world of work anyway, plus he’s got to throw in some prizewinner questions to reward those people who read around, and not just one text book. There are no textbooks in the industry.Thoughts?
well said
Novus actus interveniens mainly 3 points
Natural events
action by claimant itself
third party<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).
dont worry mate , you are absolutely right , i have checked the same question on BPP revision kit. even if its a General partnership, the profit and loss are allocate on the basis of profit sharing agreement if there is one.
the order of paying debts
1) external debts – 9000
assets – 5000
external debts left – 4000
next one is to pay loan by a partner( internal debt) – 1000
no assets left , so it adds on to general debt
total debt left- 4000+ 1000 = 5000
divided according to profit sharing ratio
1) 60%= 3000
2) 30%= 1500
3) 10% = 500any one with this answer and good explanation is going to score 10 marks. its confirmed
check BPP p& r kit question 72 or 73
hope it make sense
<cite> @vinai said:</cite>
you are wrong about your “novus actus interveniens” answer. The correct answer is
Extra Damage caused by the
1. Claimant
2. Third Party
3. Natural eventPraying for the best!
Only our prayers can get us through this, let’s pray for us all to pass with flying colours!
<cite>@andreasmacfarlane said:</cite>
Come on everybody. We’re trainee accountants and aren’t expected just to parrot back the text book – this isn’t A-levels. I’d not heard of causation before either, but it seems pretty obvious that it’s got something to do with the cause – anybody who said something sensible should hope to get at least a point.
‘But-for’ was in my notes and I remember it from a lecture I heard so there’s no excuse for point b), and they pretty much gave the answer for c) being that Novus Actus Intervenians means breaking the chain of causation.
I reckon the examiner wants to see if people are able to think independently and come up with something logical – it’s what we’ll be expected to do in the world of work anyway, plus he’s got to throw in some prizewinner questions to reward those people who read around, and not just one text book. There are no textbooks in the industry.Thoughts?
I couldn’t have put it better myself, that’s definitely given me some comfort
Thanks!Ok so this paper was a bit harsh but look its over. Lets move on and worry about the next one you are sitting or if you are finished look forward to the summer. I really like the comment above Kudos. Just one quick thing. My timing was awful so I did like 5 questions in bullet point format and the answers were not great like. Like I did the Irish varient and we got a question on dividends and how to fund them in a company. I basically just said trade on the stock exchange and issued more shares and names a few shares. I didnt want to go off topic by explaining the different types of shares etc so do you think that would get me some marks like it was worth 4 marks. It was about half a page in total?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
10questions? I saw 8 in the notes….so I totally messed up…
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
Seoul special exam centre doesn’t allow students to go to the bathroom during the exam, so my condition was very bad…How about other exam centers ?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
Thanks for the lectures still learnt a lot …
Songshuang! Seoul exam centre doesn’t allow you to go to the toilet during the exam????!!!!!!!!!! That’s not possible! Next time you’re in there, in an exam, tell the invigilator that, if you are not allowed to go to the toilet, you will stay in the exam room and relieve yourself on the floor. Then you’ll find out very quickly whether or not they will allow you to leave the room.
You must not allow some jumped-up little pocket general to abuse you like that. It’s a breach of your right to basic human dignity.
Paper was not expected like that however it was not bad a part from question 3.
hope will get 50 mark.<cite>@songshuang said:</cite>
10questions? I saw 8 in the notes….so I totally messed up…It should be written on the first page how many questions – and usual 10 for F4 : )
The last two was on the back of question booklet (for GLO)<cite>@yaserrasa said:</cite>
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?
I believe my answer is correct : ))
This paper is interesting, but unfortunately I found it interesting too late and started active studying too late.. It was so boring for me at the beginning when comparing different law systems and descriptions of international organisations.. pish..
Anyway I’ll wait for August. And I’ll study this again if needed with pleasure : )) Especially with so great tutor Mike Little! 😉Thanks… I did not have the revision kit – will have to purchase them from now on as this was my last F exam. and I’m going to need all the help I can get doing the P exams …assuming I can scrape through this one 🙁
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
How we can divide the partnership loss?
i wrote equal proportion. (but i read it now as in proportion to their capital)whether loss in equal proportion is also correct?
<cite>@pbijoybiju said:</cite>
How we can divide the partnership loss?
i wrote equal proportion. (but i read it now as in proportion to their capital)whether loss in equal proportion is also correct?
Yes you have to proportion the losses as well in proportion to their capital provided they had an agreement to do so (like in this case) else the losses are to be divided equally. Hope it make sense
Good luck.
<cite>@beatleb said:</cite>
That causation question was not a fair question! I looked all all my notes, no one mentions it anywhere……..not even once was that term used anywhere.“My Same Sentiments”
Hi. The F4 June 2013 Exam – Malta variant was in my opinion fair for who studied well and covered all subjects. We got questions on the Sources of Law; Doctrine of Privity of contract; Employment Law; Partnership deed and how can it be changed; Money Laundering; Officers of the company etc. etc.
In my case, I started revision very late so might have replied to certain questions out of context but let’s wait and see. The waiting time begins. 8th of August………..vrrrrr<cite>@laurapringle72 said:</cite>
Thank you Open Tuition for the excellent lectures and notes!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.