• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for September 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Question 32 from BBP Kit 2013 (Past paper June 2010)

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA LW Exams › Question 32 from BBP Kit 2013 (Past paper June 2010)

  • This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by soruh.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 15, 2013 at 5:11 pm #122551
    soruh
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 31
    • ☆

    Dear Professor Little,
    I did not understand the answer, conclusion(last) part from ‘Ami, Bry and Cis’
    Can you please explain that part to me; why was Bry not entitled to have 1000 pounds?

    Peace be upon you

    April 15, 2013 at 10:21 pm #122594
    MikeLittle
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 27
    • Replies: 23323
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Thank you for your peaceful message – much appreciated. Unfortunately, at this time of year, peace is the last thing that I’m likely to enjoy!

    🙂

    And I’m not a professor, but I appreciate my elevation!

    As for Ami, Bri and Cis ….. I need more detail. It looks from the question name that it’s a dissolved partnership but I do not have the question to hand and I don’t know it in my memory. Post again with some relevant detail

    But this time, bring me back down to simply “Mike”

    April 16, 2013 at 5:54 am #122610
    soruh
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 31
    • ☆

    Dear Mike,
    Here is the complete question:
    In January 2010 Ami took over an old warehouse with the intention of opening an art gallery. As the warehouse had
    to be converted, Ami entered into two contracts, one with Bry to do all the necessary plastering and one with Cis,
    who was to do all the necessary painting. Both Bry and Cis were to be paid £5,000. Both received initial payments of
    £1,000 and agreed to have the work completed on 31 March, as the art gallery had to be ready for its fi rst exhibition
    on 1 May.
    At the end of February, Bry told Ami that he would not complete the plastering in time unless she agreed to increase
    his payment by a further £1,000. Ami agreed to pay the increased sum in order to ensure that the job was done on
    time. She then thought it was only fair that she should increase the amount of money promised to Cis by the same
    amount.
    However, on completion of the work on time Ami refused to make either of the additional payments to Bry or Cis,
    beyond the original contractual price.
    Required:
    Advise Bry and Cis whether they have any rights in law to enforce Ami’s promise to pay them an extra £1,000.

    April 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm #122714
    MikeLittle
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 27
    • Replies: 23323
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Ask yourself this …”What has Bry given in exchange for the promise of the additional £1,000? If he had not known at the start of the contract that there was to be an exhibition and that time was of the essence then, upon finding out, he promised to put in the extra effort to complete on time, it could be claimed to be sufficiently similar to Williams v Roffey and he could be awarded the additional £1,000 because he would be saving Ami her lost profits caused by any delay.

    However, in this particular question scenario, it seems that Bry knew from the start that there was to be an exhibition “received initial payments of £1,000 and agreed to have the work completed on 31 March, as the art gallery had to be ready for its first exhibition on 1 May”

    So what additional consideration has Bry supplied? None! Therefore there is no supplementary contract ( not supported by consideration ) and therefore no cause for action

    OK?

    April 17, 2013 at 7:03 pm #122760
    soruh
    Member
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 31
    • ☆

    Dear Mike,
    Thank you for answering my query, your explanation has certainly cleared up my confusion.

    Peace be upon you, sir.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • The topic ‘Question 32 from BBP Kit 2013 (Past paper June 2010)’ is closed to new replies.

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • kennedyavege@2023 on Relevant Cash Flows for DCF Relevant Costs (example 1) – ACCA Financial Management (FM)
  • mrjonbain on ACCA BT Chapter 6 – Some legal obligations – Questions
  • Ken Garrett on ACCA BT Chapter 6 – Some legal obligations – Questions
  • Ken Garrett on The nature and structure of organisations – ACCA Paper BT
  • OmarAlbeity on ACCA BT Chapter 6 – Some legal obligations – Questions

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in