- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
The pilot paper is obviously useful as a past paper, but how much can we cautiously read into it? We obviously can’t expect he same questions (sadly), but can we assume that those are the areas that are specific areas that are goIng to be tested? Or can we only assume that the general weighting of the paper towards specific topics will be similar?
Or is it a complete red herring? It may be a long shot, but I’m hoping that as it is December we will get a fairly easy exam as an early Christmas present 😉
Finally, the answers at the end of the past papers go into huge detail. How close to those model answers do we need to be? As I am finding it a struggle.
The model answers will always score 12-13 out of 10 for every question, hence why the detail.
As far as I know, the pilot paper was issued over 18-24 months ago, so you’ve got enough papers after that to go by
Enough exam practice and you should be fine!
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
Hmm..
I am not very confident in taking this exam. I am really starting to wish I had not chosen to sit it in December.
I understand now that the model answers go into more detail than would be required, but I find I still cannot think of enough to put for each answer. I just cannot remember enough detail to flesh out my answers, in particular I may identify the first point, but cannot remember any more that branch off from there.
Despite putting in considerable effort, I have never felt so unprepared for an exam. 🙁
Go over and over and over and ov………. past answers.
the pilot paper was issued way back in early 2007 ( maybe even late 2006 ) and is an indication of the style and content of future exam papers following a change of syllabus / examiner. Also, the examiner answers are an indication of the sort of level the examiner is hoping you will achieve.
the BPP answers ( I can’t speak for Kaplan ) are WAY WAY over the top compared with what could reasonably be expected of even the best prepared student.
Do not get depressed by the printed solutions!
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
@mikelittle said:
Go over and over and over and ov………. past answers.the pilot paper was issued way back in early 2007 ( maybe even late 2006 ) and is an indication of the style and content of future exam papers following a change of syllabus / examiner. Also, the examiner answers are an indication of the sort of level the examiner is hoping you will achieve.
the BPP answers ( I can’t speak for Kaplan ) are WAY WAY over the top compared with what could reasonably be expected of even the best prepared student.
Do not get depressed by the printed solutions!
Thanks for your encouragement Mike. I just hope I can improve in time.
Last night I had a look at this question from a the ACCA past paper from 2009:
Whilst at work Andy always parked his car in a car park operated by Bash Ltd. On the entry to the car park just in front
of the payment machine there is a large sign in fl uorescent red paint which states:
‘These premises are not staffed by our employees and may be dangerous. Clients use these facilities strictly at their own
risk and Bash Ltd accept no liability whatsoever for any damage or injury sustained by either those using this facility
or their vehicles or property, no matter how caused.’
Andy was aware of the sign, but had never paid much attention to it. However, one day he returned to his car to fi nd
that it had been badly damaged by a towing vehicle driven by an employee of Bash Ltd. Whilst on his way to the car
park offi ce to complain he was hit by the same towing vehicle, which was clearly being driven dangerously by one of
Bash Ltd’s employees. As a result, not only was his car severely damaged, but he suffered a broken leg and was off
work for eight weeks.
Bash Ltd has accepted that its employee was negligent on both counts but denies any liability, relying on the exclusion
clause.
Required:
On the understanding that the clause excluding Bash Ltd’s liability was incorporated into its contract with Andy,
advise Andy whether there is any action he can take against Bash Ltd.I thought I was doing quite well identifying that the the sign was clearly displayed prior to the contract (before payment machine), and that although Andy didn’t take much notice there were previous dealings as he had parked there before. Then in the answer it pointed out that what was really relevant was the UCTA etc.
Which I had completely forgotten to talk about.
Yes, it looks initially like a Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking situation, but then the question eliminates that as we are told to assume that the exclusion clause is incorporated into the contract.
But UCTA tells us that you cannot exclude liability for negligence where that negligence results in death or personal injury.
Sorry, but it’s an UCTA question!
Maybe PLANNING your 10 point answer BEFORE you start to write might help you
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
Well I’m glad it is a lesson I have managed to learn now, not on the day.
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
@mikelittle said:
But UCTA tells us that you cannot exclude liability for negligence where that negligence results in death or personal injury.On a related note, how does this fit in with volenti non fit injuria? As an example, if you are going to go skydiving you will probably have to sign a waiver form on the above principle. If the skydiving company negligently packs the parachute before your jump and you fall to your death as it doesn’t open, can your family sue for negligence or are they prevented form doing so due to volenti….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.