Forums › ACCA Forums › ACCA LW Corporate and Business Law Forums › Paper F4 Dec 2010 exam was
- This topic has 126 replies, 72 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by choonfah87.
- AuthorPosts
- December 8, 2010 at 2:08 pm #73161AnonymousInactive
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
well l tried
December 8, 2010 at 2:36 pm #73162@soniasameersohail said:
i want to appear for f5 and f6 in the coming june 2011..can anyone please tell me what books to go for..ive heard that kaplan is good for calculative paper and bpp for theory..so please tell me if f5 and f6 are based on theory or calculations?? because then ill purchase the books respectivelyhelp neededdd..so please ppl reply asap
December 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm #73163AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
Question 7 on unfair dismissal was the easiest for me, I didn’t prepare thoroughly so I think I missed quiet a number of easy marks.
December 8, 2010 at 3:57 pm #73164Hi Can any tell me what was the Partnership Act for Q10.
December 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm #73166@soniasameersohail said:
help neededdd..so please ppl reply asapHi sonia
I finish both F5 & F6 with 1st attempt and the text i used was Bpp
I never tried kaplan cus i heard Bpp was the best.December 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm #73167but please tell me which one is theoritical and which one is calculative..f5 or f6??
December 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm #73169AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
the examiner took aspects of topics that we usually not tend to focus on…for instance, the contracts question, a lot of emphasis went in to elements and not remedies. he brought remedies. d shares question was shitty! the partnership scenario could have been clearer…did it really ask for financial aspect of the settlement?
December 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm #73172AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
Last 3 questions were easy to answer…….
December 8, 2010 at 9:34 pm #73173@soniasameersohail said:
but please tell me which one is theoritical and which one is calculative..f5 or f6??F6 definitely is a calculation, F5 its a bit of both theoretical and calculative. Check the pass papers on the ACCA website u will get an idea on how the paper is structured. I must say that when i wrote F5 i didn’t do any practice question cus its all about application of what you have learned and by all means learn it by heart and u would be successful. U can also go to both Bpp and kaplan site check the content ensure that all area of the study guide is covered.
I must say ACCA recommend both of these text so u shouldn’t go wrong.
Good LuckSo u wrote F4 how was it and i fig u used kaplan text huh
December 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm #73174Q8 there seems to be a mixed feeling of what it exactly related to…. consideration, promissory estoppel,acceptance by conduct, intetion to create legal intentions?? who knows?
Does anyone know what exactly it relates to?
I think remedies of breach of contract should cover Damages, Liquidated damages and penalty clauses, Unliquidated damages, remoteness of loss and measure of damages, reliance damages and finally equitable damages. A lot to say for this question -I think it should be worth mmore than 10 marks compared to some others!!.
December 8, 2010 at 10:18 pm #73175@sabrina1942 said:
F6 definitely is a calculation, F5 its a bit of both theoretical and calculative. Check the pass papers on the ACCA website u will get an idea on how the paper is structured. I must say that when i wrote F5 i didn’t do any practice question cus its all about application of what you have learned and by all means learn it by heart and u would be successful. U can also go to both Bpp and kaplan site check the content ensure that all area of the study guide is covered.I must say ACCA recommend both of these text so u shouldn’t go wrong.
Good LuckSo u wrote F4 how was it and i fig u used kaplan text huh
thanx sabrina..and i used bpp for f4..i hope to expect atleast 60 percent
December 8, 2010 at 11:23 pm #73176@joevassallo said:
Q8 there seems to be a mixed feeling of what it exactly related to…. consideration, promissory estoppel,acceptance by conduct, intetion to create legal intentions?? who knows?Does anyone know what exactly it relates to?
I think remedies of breach of contract should cover Damages, Liquidated damages and penalty clauses, Unliquidated damages, remoteness of loss and measure of damages, reliance damages and finally equitable damages. A lot to say for this question -I think it should be worth mmore than 10 marks compared to some others!!.
Hey Joey Question 8 relates to Intention to create legal relation
and we would have had to differentiate whether it was social/domestic agreement or commercial agreement.December 9, 2010 at 12:35 am #73177AnonymousInactive- Topics: 2
- Replies: 3
- ☆
Please Help me out Mr. Admin
I hope to see some Comments on this By tutor
I hope to see some From friends to
i think question 8 of the paper f4 was related with the intention to create legal relation ship and with some ideas of consideration be used i suppose the answer will be complete
and refer to question number 9 i think it was the question on capital maintance which included the payment of dividend and restriction in capital reduction
the only thing is that we can’t use reserve for the purpose of distributing dividends it is the part of capital and doing may require some special requirements, passing of the Special Resolution, if Model Article Requires so and if courts Approves you to do so, however it may be a requirement for a private company’s but this is not allowed for the Public Companies and Strict Rules must be followed, and doing so may have serious consequences. hope soOn question number 5 what accounting record do we need to keep i classified into Statutory requirements and Stake Holders requirements and Mentioned that what accounting records are required to full fill this requirements
on Question number 2
is the breach of Contractual terms Breach of contract ? yes than its ok
no why?December 9, 2010 at 6:48 am #73178Kaplan is good. I will also take F5 & F6 in June 2011. But i always do self study. F2 exempted June 2010
F3 exempted June 2010
F1 passed 60 marks June 2010
F7 pass 57 marks June 2010
now i take F4 in December 2010F5 & F6 will take in June 2011
Best of luck for all students for F4.
I request all F4 students that please give your comments on F4 when ACCA will ask about exams after 16 December 2010. ACCA exxaminers always consider these points before exam checking.
Ali Zia
Faisalabad
03338976065December 9, 2010 at 7:16 am #73179Q9 was related with distributable profits. Only dividend can be paid out of distributable profits.
It also relates with reduction of capital.
Distributable profit includes
Profit (for the year and past years accumulated)
Capital
less Depreciation but revaluation reserves not takenBy aplying above rules
Only *1000 pounds were available for distribution not 4000 pounds.
All directors and shareholders if knowingly involve were gulity of fraud and have to pay back dividend inculding penalty.
*Last year loss 2000
profit ds year 3000
only 1000 pounds available.But i didnot write about reduction of capital because Capital amount was not available in question. I write only Distribualble profits.
I think examiner will give 5 marks. Hope so
December 9, 2010 at 7:36 am #73180AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
Q9 – I did this…ended up with £1000 to distribute as dividend. As it was a PLC, this was illegal, the court is the only place that can authorise a dip in capital. I did mention (accumulated profit – Accumulated losses).
Q8 – I still think was to do with Past Consideration and Re Mc Ardle & Caseys Patents. Also maybe Williams v Roffey as there was a “practicable benefit”?.. Just a guess.December 9, 2010 at 8:41 am #73181Q8 was NOT about past consideration.
Past consideration means that promise to pay was made AFTER the act was done.
Here, clearly, we had a valid contract, and promise to pay was made BEFORE the act was done.
Also, promissory estoppel does not apply here.December 9, 2010 at 10:24 am #73182AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 7
- ☆
Attempted f4 global!
my ppr was DISASTER!!
m jus sure abt 3 ans…q.3..q.6….n q.8!
wat was da last questn abt?? i jus wrote ALL i knew abt partnershp!! had no odr choiceL:-(!
n cn we pass if we right somthn jus relevnt to the questn?? cz i seriously need 2 pass!December 9, 2010 at 11:22 am #73183in question 8 i wrote abt intention to create legal relations..in case of ben the idea of other relations would apply and incase of chee i applied the concept of other domestic arrangement cuz i thut that chee was her friend..bth were liable to pay back..i also included the concept of service that they had asked for service and therefore they are liable to pay…its one of the exceptions to past consideration…
in question 9 i came up with the leftover profit of pound 1000..and so the distribution of total pound 4000 wasnt valid as it was a public limited company..in part two of the question i discussed the concepts that net assets should be more than issued capital and undistributed reserves….so lets c how much i score…
in question 10 i distributed the leftover 10000 to the partners..they had to forego the rest of their capital..
in economic financial liability of tort, i wrote abt volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence..i think this is compeletely wrong..i shud have instead written abt but for test…but as they had asked for the liability, i concluded they meant remedies if losses are incurred….
December 9, 2010 at 11:25 am #73184when can we get the answers from professionals?? and dont u people think that the results wud come out too late..they shudve been announced by mid jan..its soo unfair!!!
December 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm #73185AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
@morpher999 said:
Well. Think is was ok overall. Didn’t revise unfair dismissal but knew about remedy.Just some little precisions:
Primary legislation = parliamentary legislation (or does that include case law as well?)
Question 8, Was it about promissory estoppel or intentions to create legal relations. Not sure.For the last question, didn;t understand anything. i do know some of the means of partnership disolution but the financial effect of it, nope.
Overall, i do believe it was a fair paper.
Well, I think it’s a mixture of both!Here is my answer:
There is definitely a contract between both BEN,AMY AN CHE, however not legally binding for all..
First, there is an intention to create a legal relationship-one family agreement(ben) and the other commercial agreement(Che)..thus not legally binding for ben and legally binding for Che..then, comes promissory estoppel, which allows a person to recover on a promise already made to her if she already acted upon it..therefore, Amy can recover part of the consideration of 1000pounds from Ben..and full amount from Che..(that’s my answers..but well for che am not sure if it’s really commercial^^’)…now hope most of my answers are correct!Any suggestions?..December 9, 2010 at 1:50 pm #73186AnonymousInactive- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
@ailine_ng said:
Well, I think it’s a mixture of both!Here is my answer:
There is definitely a contract between both BEN,AMY AN CHE, however not legally binding for all..
First, there is an intention to create a legal relationship-one family agreement(ben) and the other commercial agreement(Che)..thus not legally binding for ben and legally binding for Che..then, comes promissory estoppel, which allows a person to recover on a promise already made to her if she already acted upon it..therefore, Amy can recover part of the consideration of 1000pounds from Ben..and full amount from Che..(that’s my answers..but well for che am not sure if it’s really commercial^^’)…now hope most of my answers are correct!Any suggestions?..With regards to intention, it is a presumption of no intention between family members but it is rebuttable. I think that both Ben and Che (he may be a friend, but the work was done for his business – commercial) have to pay the full amount, but with this question you will get marks either way as a judge could decide either way.
With regards to promissory estoppel, isn’t that only relevant when one party acted on a promise that they hadn’t supported with consideration? Amy provided consideration by carrying out the design work, I think it was just a simple contract.
December 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm #73187hi kuzma2
how much did you managed to do last times, when took under 5?
I have mistaken the question with arbitration panel, registers and constitution.
in rest I have written quite well..don t know if enoughi dont know how to evaluate what i have done
December 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm #73188AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 12
- ☆
People seem to be mistaken about Q8. Amy provided a professional service for both Ben and Che. The fact that they were related and friends is irrelevant. If you remember, the question stated that “Amy updated their BUSINESS websites”. Thus this is a commercial relationship, the question wanted you to fall into the trap of suggesting no legal intention is not presumed (which you would have received at least a mark for). I don’t know where people are getting promissory estoppel from; the contract was updating the website for £1000, its simply a contract. All in all this question had a chance to gather a lot of marks; explaining what a contract is, what elements a contract needs, the legal intention presumption and the fact it can be rebutted and commercial intention. I expect to do well on this question, the rest of the paper I am unsure about….
December 9, 2010 at 2:18 pm #73189AnonymousInactive- Topics: 0
- Replies: 12
- ☆
*legal intention is not presumed
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.