Paper F4 Dec 2010 exam was

well l tried

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.

@soniasameersohail said:
help neededdd..so please ppl reply asap

Hi 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.

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?

@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 Luck

So u wrote F4 how was it and i fig u used kaplan text huh

@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 Luck

So 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

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 so

On 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?

Q9 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 taken

By 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

Q8 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.

in 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….

@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?..

hi 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 enough

i dont know how to evaluate what i have done

*legal intention is not presumed