Paper F4 Dec 2010 exam was

Qs 8 …intention to creat legal relations???????

@ali_zia4u said:
In Question 2.

I only write that damages are available as common law remedy in case of breach of contact.

Moreover Equitable remedies are available for

1. Specific performance

2. Injunction

Then i explain injunction with a example.

I dont know that it was correct or not?

Yeah I spent most of the question talking about damages then slipped in a couple of lines about the equitable remedies at the end, couldn’t really expand on it.

@saaag said:
what was principle of neighbor?

I guess it was Private nuisance…Not sure though..

@sizzlin89 said:
will someone tell me what was question 8 related to?? i wrote about intentions and a bit of unilateral offer..wen i came out of the hall a friend told me they were askng about suffiency of consideration??? wat was it related to…

I wrote about Consideration due to the promise in the question and in the scenario.

it was a promise for an Act (Carlill) – the element of value to which both parties must present.
in this case Amy was promised £1000 for her services – consideration was sufficient.

I thought Long hard about intention, however i dont think it was the case for question 8.

@saaag said:
what was principle of neighbor?

I think this wants a bit of history from donoghue v stevenson and then talk about the broadness of it – bringing a more streamlined law caparo v dickman – establishing the need for proximity in the principle

Q2 I wrote about breach of conditions, warranties, quoting the opera singer case, where damages or repudiation of the contract can occur, anyone else?

paper was good !!! It was OK but very lengthly ……. did not remember pre-emption 🙁 and loosed 4 marks for this one, and scenario based Q10 about general partnership was incomplete….

overall paper was good & attempted well

I think I might get 51 if I am lucky. I allowed 0 marks for Question 8 (I put consideration, executory and promissory estoppel, but do not think it is correct.
The other questions were ok but I did not write as much as I would have liked. Fingers crossed.

I absolutley hate law at this point it was my 3rd attempt so sick of it as got 49 and 48 points in previous attempts. I think this one was the worst one.
as always started thinking to much about 3 last questions and got confused finally and spent 2 much time on them. 3 hours is deffinatley not enough time to writte the answers that are expected from us.
I think examiner is taking his paper 2 serious we are accountants not solicitors…

well kuzma to be very honest..i did the same..i distributed the remaining 10000 as the return of capital with geo being returned the highest..i even made such a mess outta that answerr..im definitely not done with question 10

@soniasameersohail said:
well kuzma to be very honest..i did the same..i distributed the remaining 10000 as the return of capital with geo being returned the highest..i even made such a mess outta that answerr..im definitely not done with question 10

I think this question had to do with voluntary liquidation so thats what i spoke about, as partnership was still solvent. Dunno maybe im wrong??

Here is what I did:

Question 1

I didn’t mention anything on case law, as I thought the question was just about legislation. I talked about primary legislation being from Parliament, and about the typical process of creating statute law (green paper, white paper etc) and that delegated legislation comes through Parliament’s power to delegate. I mentioned MPs/civil servants creating the technical detail to achieve the major aims of the Act delegated. I also mentioned local authorities and bye-laws and professional regulations (ACCA).

For the second part I mentioned that the courts can strike down delegated legislation if it is proved that Parliament acted ultra vires regarding its power to delegate, or if it is incompatible with the ECHR enacted through the HRA 1998. I then finished stating that with regards to primary legislation the courts could not do this and must declare it incompatible (Bellinger v Bellinger) or interpret it in a way that was compatible (Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza).

Question 2

I spoke about repudiatory breaches and anticipatory breaches (Hochster v De La Tour) and about discharging the contract or continuing until actual breach. I think then I went slightly off on breach of conditions and mentioned Poussard v Spiers). Then I think I went on about quantum meruit if there had already been some work done and mentioned the case of the Duke of Wellington’s funeral, as I couldn’t remember the name.

I also spoke about Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth for when the cost of cure is excessive, and somehow shoe-horned in the tests for remoteness of damage from Hadley v Baxendale and an illustration of these in the Victoria laundry case. There may have been more but I can’t remember.

Question 3

I think this one was about the neighbour wasn’t it? I talked of Donoghue v Stevenson, but didn’t think that was enough. So I took a shot about the duty of care and proximity laid down in Caparo.

I can’t remember the what else was asked, but I wrote something down.

Question 4

I said what pre-emption rights were, then for a long shot threw in that if this wasn’t followed it is not a variation of class rights!?! Don’t know what that was about. Then I said what a rights issue was and a bonus issue, but I couldn’t think of much to put so I don’t think I did well here.

Question 5

Statutory books I think? I harped on about register of members, register of charges, register of director’s service contracts. The second part I said that the records must be sufficient to give a true and fair view…previous 6 years… accurate stock records blah blah…

Again didn’t write much so I’m not optimistic for that one.

Question 6

I listed the seven statutory duties of directors with a bit of filler on each one.

Question 7

Spoke about the requirements to qualify under the ERA 1996 and the exceptions to the rule (pregnancy etc). Then went on to talk about automatically unfair reasons, fair reasons and the employer showing they were reasonable etc.

The second bit I explained reinstatement, re-engagement and compensation.

Question 8

I read this one as a question about intention to create legal relations. I pointed our the cases for close relations (Balfour v Balfour) and the presumptions of the court, along with the rebuttal (Merritt v Merritt) for Ben, and the case of Simpkins v Pays for Che. But I also pointed out that in each case the work was for their business, so assumed the court would treat it as a business situation. In either case, then, the courts would presume intention.

To be honest promissory estoppel didn’t even enter my mind. I saw it as an offer of £1000, an acceptance, sufficient consideration, and intetnion.

Question 9

As the distributable profits are accumulated realised profits less accumulated realised losses, I concluded that the dividend was illegal as it was from capital (then said a bit about capital maintenance)

Then I said that Dee and Eff would be liable to make good the dividend payment back to the company, or if it went into administration before then they would be liable to the creditors.

Question 10

I stated that the creditors would be paid first, then the partner who had made a loan leaving £10,000 to be distributed in the ratio 5:3:2. I mentioned something about there may be interest due to the partner if it was in the agreement, but as there was nothing mentioned I assumed not. I couldn’t think of much more to put!

Overall I didn’t really enjoy the paper, I found it hard to get into. I hope I have done enough to pass as I haven’t really enjoyed this module. Until I get my results in February though, I’m going to keep reading over the notes incase I have to re-sit.