- This topic has 19 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir, I am slightly confused with this question.
In the context of the law of agency, an agent will not be liable for a contract in which of the following situations?
A where the agent fails to disclose that they are acting as agent
B where the agent intends to take the benefit of the contract for himself and fails to disclose that they are acting as agent
C where the agent acts on his own behalf but does identify that he is an agent
D where an agent’s authority has been terminated but the third party does not know of that terminationThe answer seems to be C but the course notes specifies that the agent may be liable if the agent acts on own behalf even though claiming to act on behalf of a principal.
Please advice.
Where the agent really is an agent – but with limited authority, say – so there is a principal, then the agent will avoid liability to the third party.
However, the principal will be able to recover any loss from the agent – basically, not a good question. I think I’ll probably find that I’m changing it in the near future
Thanks for bringing it to my attention 🙂
Hi Sir,
I have a small doubt in this question from the course notes.
Which of the following is potentially incorrect?
“In the context of contract law, an offer is a sufficiently definite proposal for concluding a contract which …….”A is made to a specified individual
B indicates the intention and willingness of the person making t=he offer to be bound upon acceptance of the offer
C indicates the goods involved
D gives a sufficiently definitive description of the goodsThen answer is A but the course notes mentions that an offer is a sufficiently definite proposal for concluding a contract which is addressed to one or more persons.
Yes, this is a tricky one.
An offer MAY be made to a specified individual. However, if the intention was that it should be made to a group of people, then making it to an individual would not be appropriate.
The question asks for “which of the following is POTENTIALLY incorrect” and so option A is the right choice
As I say, it’s a tricky one
Sir my question is
A public company by definition should have at least how many members?
– 2
– 1
– 50,000
– 7
My answer is “1” but in mock exam of F4 said “2”. AM i wrong?Which of the following is an equitable remedy?
-quantum meruit
-action for price
-injunction
-damages
My answer is “injunction” but in F4ENG practice Questions ch(4) said it is wrong n the right answer is “action for price”. Am i wrong ??No, you’re correct – the correction is already done and waiting to go up on the site. Injunction IS the equitable remedy here
“A public company by definition should have at least how many members?
– 2
– 1
– 50,000
– 7
My answer is “1” but in mock exam of F4 said “2”. AM i wrong?”– no matter how often I look for this, I cannot find a definitive answer! I believe that it’s 2 but if you can show me the reliable source that says it’s 1, then I’ll believe you (and by reliable source I’m excluding both BPP and Kaplan)
Sir, my question is :
For the question:The UNCISG applies to which of the following contracts…?
Correct answer is: the buyer is to pay money to the seller in exchange of the transfer of ownership of the goods for, unknown to the seller, the buyer’s personal use. It means that if Seller is unknown about personal use of goods by the buyer, UNCISG applies.But in the Notice there is a list of exceptions for which the UNCISG does not apply and among them is:
-for goods which are purchased for personal use unless the seller new or ought to know about proposed use. It means, if seller knows about personal use UNCISG does apply.
I am confused with this, please explain in plain English when it applies and when it doesn’t… may be some examples, please.
“But in the Notice there is a list of exceptions for which the UNCISG does not apply and among them is:
-for goods which are purchased for personal use unless the seller new or ought to know about proposed use. It means, if seller knows about personal use UNCISG does apply.”
Break this down ….
…when “goods (which) are purchased for personal use unless the seller new or ought to know about proposed use” and if the seller DID know, then UNCISG does not apply
Conversely, if the seller doesn’t know of the proposed use and the buyer is buying the goods for personal use, then this is not an exception and UNCISG continues to apply
But there is an exception and that is when “goods (which) are purchased for personal use” and if the seller “knew or ought to know about proposed use”
OK, that’s saying that UNCISG does not apply when goods are bought for personal use and the seller knows
So, it IS an exception when buyer is buying for personal use and therefore UNCISG does NOT apply.
However, if seller knew or ought to have known, then it’s not an exception and therefore UNCISG DOES apply
To summarise, in the case of the buyer buying for personal use, we have two possibilities.
1) Either the seller DOES know, or
2) the seller DOESN’T know
1) If seller DOES know, UNCISG doesn’t apply
2) If seller DOESN’T know, UNCISG does apply
Clear? As mud!
Thank you, Sir. The following is as clear as day!
1) If seller DOES know, UNCISG doesn’t apply
2) If seller DOESN’T know, UNCISG does apply
@mikelittle said:
“A public company by definition should have at least how many members?
– 2
– 1
– 50,000
– 7
My answer is “1” but in mock exam of F4 said “2”. AM i wrong?”– no matter how often I look for this, I cannot find a definitive answer! I believe that it’s 2 but if you can show me the reliable source that says it’s 1, then I’ll believe you (and by reliable source I’m excluding both BPP and Kaplan)
Sir, I found this in Wikipedia – United Kingdom company law
Under the title formation of the company, it says:-Directors must be appointed – one in a private company and at least two in a public company – and a public company must have a secretary, but there needs to be no more than a single member.
So would this be the right answer?
Sir, this is a question from Dec 2014
Which of the following is an institution of the United Nations?
A UNCITRAL
B UNIDROIT
C WTOAccording to me the answer should be B since it’s the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. But the answer is A.
Could you help me with this?
I would have said that the World Trade Organisation should be the correct answer!
But there again, so is Unidroit
Uncitral is more a set of rules rather than an institution
Are you sure that the question doesn’t ask “Which of the following is NOT a United Nations Institution?”
Yes sir. Kaplan also has the exaact question. The answer there is also A. Even the ACCA’s answer matches with BPP and Kaplan’s answer
Uncitral is a COMMISSION. Now, whether a Commission is an Institution or not, I hesitate to say
Unidroit is for sure an Institution and so too is WTO
???
Whatever, it doesn’t seem to me to be a “good” question
Hi sir my Q is
In a liquidation, the holders of partly paid shares will have to pay the amount as yet unpaid on those shares. To whom is that money payable?
A. The court
B. The liquidator
C. The bank
D. The company
I m confuse between B and D. Can u pls tell which correct n why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.