2023年ACCA考试试题及答案

2023年ACCA考试试题及答案

Question:

(a)InrelationtotheEnglishlegalsystem,explainthemeaningof:

(i)criminallaw;

(ii)civillaw.

(b)Explainthehierarchyofcourtsdealingwithcriminallaw.

Answer;

(a)(i)CriminallawrelatestoconductwhichtheStateconsiderswith

disapprovalandwhichitseekstocontrol.Criminallawinvolvesthe

enforcementofparticularformsofbehaviour,andtheState,asthe

representativeofsociety,actspositivelytoensurecompliance.Thus,

criminalcasesarebroughtbytheStateinthenameoftheCrownand

casesarereportedintheformofReginav…(ReginaissimplyLatinfor

'queen'andcasereferencesareusuallyabbreviatedtoRv...).In

criminallawtheprosecutorprosecutesadefendant(or'theaccused')

andisrequiredtoprovethatthedefendantisguiltybeyondreasonable

doubt.TheCompaniesAct(CA)006setsoutmanypotentialcriminal

offences,whichmaybecommittedbyeitherthecompanyitself,orits

officersorotherindividuals.Anexampleofthiswhichmaybecitedis

s.993,whichrelatestothecriminaloffenceoffraudulenttradingand

appliestoanyperson,notjustdirectorsormembers,whoisknowinglya

partytothecarryingonofabusinesswiththeintenttodefraudcreditors.

Thepotentialpenaltyonconvictionisimprisonmentforamaximum

periodof10years,orafineorboth.

(ii)Civillaw,ontheotherhand,isaformofprivatelawandinvolvesthe

relationshipsbetweenindividualcitizens.Itisthelegalmechanism

throughwhichindividualscanassertclaimsagainstothersandhave

thoserightsadjudicatedandenforced.Thepurposeofcivillawisto

settledisputesbetweenindividualsandtoprovideremedies;itisnot

concernedwithpunishmentassuch.TheroleoftheStateinrelationto

civillawistoestablishthegeneralframeworkoflegalrulesandto

providethelegalinstitutionstooperatethoserights,buttheactivation

ofthecivillawisstrictlyamatterfortheindividualsconcerned.

Contract,tortandpropertylawaregenerallyaspectsofcivillaw.

Civilcasesarereferredtobythenamesofthepartiesinvolvedinthe

dispute,forexample,SmithvJones.Incivillaw,aclaimantsues(or

'bringsaclaimagainst')adefendantandthedegreeofproofisonthe

balanceofprobabilities.InrelationtotheCA006,thedutiesowedto

companiesbydirectorssetoutinss.171-177maybecitedasexamples

ofcivilliability,anddirectorsinbreachareliabletorecompensethe

companyfortheconsequencesoftheirfailuretocomplywiththose

duties,asissetoutins.178.

Indistinguishingbetweencriminalandcivilactions,ithastobe

rememberedthatthesameeventmaygiverisetoboth.Forexample,

wherethedriverofacarinjuressomeonethroughtheirrecklessdriving,

theywillbeliabletobeprosecutedundertheRoadTrafficlegislation,but

atthesametime,theywillalsoberesponsibletotheinjuredpartyinthe

civillawrelatingtothetortofnegligence.Similarly,adirectormayfall

foulofboththecriminalregulationoffraudulenttrading(s.993CA006)

aswellasbreachingtheirdutytothecompanyunderoneofthe

provisionsofss.171-177CA006.

(b)Theessentialcriminaltrialcourtsarethemagistrates'courtsand

Thisquestionrequiresanexplanationoftherulesrelatingtothe

acceptanceandrevocationofoffersincontractlaw.

(a)Acceptanceisnecessaryfortheformationofacontract.Oncethe

offereehasacceptedthetermsoffered,acontractcomesintoeffect.

Bothpartiesarebound：theofferorcannolongerwithdrawtheiroffer,

norcantheoffereewithdrawtheiracceptance.Therulesrelatingto

acceptanceare：

(i)Acccptanccmustcorrespondwiththetermsoftheoffer.Thus,the

offereemustnotseektointroducenewcontractualtermsintotheir

acceptance(NealevMerrett(1930)).

(ii)Acounter-offerdoesnotconstituteacceptance(HydevWrench

(1840)).Analogously,aconditionalacceptancecannotcreatea

contractualrelationship(WinnvBull(1877)).

(iii)Acceptancemaybeintheformofexpresswords,eitheroralor

written.Alternatively,acceptancemaybeimpliedfromconduct

(BrogdenvMetropolitanRailwayCo(1877)).

(iv)Generally,acceptancemustbecommunicatedtotheofferor.

Consequently,silencecannotamounttoacceptance(FelthousevBindley

(1863)).

(v)Communicationofacceptanceisnotnecessary,however,wherethe

offerorhaswaivedtherighttoreceivecommunication.Thusinunilateral

contracts,suchasCarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo(1893),acceptance

occurredwhentheoffereeperformedtherequiredact.Thus,intheCarlill

case,MrsCarlilldidnothavetoinformtheSmokeBallCothatshehad

usedtheirtreatment.

(vi)Whereacceptanceiscommunicatedthroughthepostalservice,then

itiscompleteassoonastheletter,properlyaddressedandstamped,is

posted.Thecontractisconcludedevenifthelettersubsequentlyfailsto

reachtheofferor(AdamsvLindsell(1818)).However,thepostalrulewill

onlyapplywhereitisinthecontemplationofthepartiesthatthepost

willbeusedasthemeansofacceptance.Ifthepartieshavenegotiated

eitherfacetoface,inashop,forexample,oroverthetelephone,thenit

mightnotbereasonablefortheoffereetousethepostasameans

ofcommunicatingtheiracceptanceandtheywouldnotgainthebenefit

ofthepostalrule.

Thepostalruleappliesequallytotelegrams(ByrnevVanTienhoven

(1880)),Itdoesnotapply,however,whenmeansofinstantaneous

communicationareused(EntoresvMilesFarEastCorp(1955)).

Inordertoexpresslyexcludetheoperationofthepostalrule,theofferor

caninsistthatacceptanceisonlytobeeffectiveonreceipt(Holwell

SecuritiesvHughes(1974)).Theofferorcanalsorequirethatacceptance

becommunicatedinaparticularmanner.Wheretheofferordoesnot

insistthatacceptancecanonlybemadeinthestatedmanner,then

acceptanceiseffectiveifitiscommunicatedinawaynoless

advantageoustotheofferor(YatesBuildingCovJPulleyn&Sons(1975)).

(b)Revocationisthetechnicaltermforthecancellationofanofferand

occurswhentheofferorwithdrawstheiroffer.Therulesrelatingto

revocationare：

(i)Anoffermayberevokedatanytimebeforeacceptance.However,

oncerevocationhasoccurred,itisnolongeropentotheoffereeto

accepttheoriginaloffer(RoutledgevGrant(1828)).

(ii)Revocationisnoteffectiveuntilitisactuallyreceivedbytheofferee.

Thismeansthattheofferormustmakesurethattheoffereeismade

awareofthewithdrawaloftheoffer,otherwiseitmightstillbeopento

theoffereetoaccepttheoffer(ByrnevTienhoven(1880)).

(iii)Communicationofrevocationmaybemadethroughareliablethird

party.Wheretheoffereefindsoutaboutthewithdrawaloftheofferfrom

areliablethirdparty,therevocationiseffectiveandtheoffereecanno

longerseektoaccepttheoriginaloffer(DickinsonvDodds(1876)).

(iv)Apromisetokeepanofferopenisonlybindingwherethereisa

separatecontracttothateffect.Suchanagreementisknownasan

optioncontract,anditmustbesupportedbyseparateconsiderationfor

thepromisetokeeptheofferopen.

(v)lnrelationtounilateralcontracts,i.e.acontractwhereoneparty

promisessomethinginreturnforsomeactioncnthepartofanother

party,revocationisnotpermissibleoncetheoffereehasstarted

performingthetaskrequested(ErringtonvErrington&Woods(1952)).

Question:

InrelationtotheTORTOFNEGLIGENCE,explain:

(a)thestandardofcareowedbyonepersontoanother;

(b)remotenessofdamage.

Answer:

(a)Thelawdoesnotrequireunreasonablestepstobetakentoavoid

breachingadutyofcare.Inlegalterms,abreachofdutyofcareoccursif

thedefendantfails:

'........todosomethingwhichareasonableman,guideduponthose

considerationswhichordinarilyregulatetheconductofhumanaffairs,

woulddo;ordoingsomethingwhichaprudentandreasonableman

wouldnotdo.'(BlythvBirminghamWaterworksCo(1856))

Thusthefactthatthedefendanthasactedlessskilfullythanthe

reasonablepersonwouldexpectwillusuallyresultinabreachbeing

established.Thisisthecaseevenwherethedefendantisinexperienced

intheirparticulartradeoractivity.Forexample,alearnerdrivermust

driveinthemannerofadriverofskill,experienceandcare(Nettleshipv

Weston(1971)).However,thestandardofcareexpectedfromachild

maybelowerthanthatofanadult(MullinvRichards(1998)).

Clearlythedegree,orstandard,ofcaretobeexercisedbysucha

reasonablepersonwillvarydependingoncircumstances,butthe

followingfactorswillbetakenintoconsiderationindeterminingthe

issue:

(i)Theseriousnessoftherisk

Thedegreeofcaremustbebalancedagainstthedegreeofriskinvolved

ifthedefendantfailsintheirduty.Itfollows,therefore,thatthegreater

theriskofinjuryorthemorelikelyitistooccur,themorethedefendant

willhavetodotofulfiltheirduty.Thedegreeofcaretobeexercisedby

thedefendantmaybeincreasediftheclaimantisveryyoung,oldorless

ablebodiedinsomeway.Theruleisthat'youmusttakeyourvictimas

youfindhim'(thisisknownastheegg-shellskullrule).

InHaleyvLondon日ectricityBoard(1965)thedefendants,inorderto

carryoutrepairs,hadmadeaholeinthepavement.Theprecautions

takenbythe日ectricityBoardweresufficienttosafeguardasighted

person,butHaley,whowasblind,fellintothehole,strikinghisheadon

thepavement,andbecamedeafasaconsequence.Itwasheldthatthe

ElectricityBoardwasinbreachofitsdutyofcaretopedestrians.Ithad

failedtoensurethattheexcavationwassafeforallpedestrians,notjust

sightedpersons.Itwasclearlynotreasonablysafeforblindpersons,yet

itwasforeseeablethattheymightusethepavement.

Thedegreeofriskhastobebalancedagainstthesocialutilityand

importanceofthedefendant'sactivity.Forexample,inWattv

HertfordshireCC(1954),theinjurysustainedbytheplaintiff,afireman,

whilstgettingtoanemergencysituation,wasnotacceptedasbeingthe

resultofabreachofdutyofcareas,inthecircumstances,timewasnot

availabletotakethemeasureswhichwouldhaveremovedtherisk.

(ii)Costandpracticability

Anyforeseeableriskhastobebalancedagainstthemeasuresnecessary

toeliminateit.Ifthecostofthesemeasuresfaroutweighstherisk,the

defendantwillprobablynotbeinbreachofdutyforfailingtocarryout

thosemeasures(LatimervAECLtd(1952)).

(iii)Skilledpersons

Individualswhoholdthemselvesoutashavingparticularskillsarenot

judgedagainstthestandardofthereasonableperson,butthe

reasonablepersonpossessingthesameprofessionalskillastheypurport

tohave(RoevMinisterofHealth(1954)).

(b)Thepositioninnegligenceisthatthepersonultimatelyliablein

damagesisonlyresponsibletotheextentthatthelosssustainedwas

considerednottobetooremote.Thetestforremotenesswas

establishedinTheWagonMound(No1)(1961).

Thedefendantsnegligentlyallowedfurnaceoiltospillfromashipinto

Sydneyharbour,whichsubsequentlycausedafire,whichspreadto,and

damaged,theplaintiff'swharf.Althoughthedefendantswereheldtobe

inbreachoftheirdutyofcare,theywereonlyliableforthedamage

causedtothewharfandslipwaythroughthefoulingoftheoil.They

werenotliableforthedamagecausedbyfirebecausedamagebyfire

wasatthattimeunforeseeable(theoilhadahighignitionpointandit

couldnotbeforeseenthatitwouldigniteonwater).

Question:

Inthecontextofpaymentforsharesissuedbyacompany,explainthe

meaningandlegaleffectofthefollowing:

(a)capitalmaintenance;

(b)issuingsharesatapremium;

(c)issuingsharesatadiscount.

Answer:

(a)Shareholdersinlimitedliabilitycompaniesenjoythebenefitoflimited

liabilityandusuallycannotberequiredtopaymorethanthevalueofthe

sharestheytakeintheircompany.However,thatprivilegeisonly

extendedtothemonthebasisthattheyfullysubscribetothecompany

'scapital.Inturn,thatcapitalisseenasafundagainstwhichcreditors

canclaimintheeventofadispute.Capitalmaintenancereferstothe

wayinwhichthecapitalfundoflimitedliabilitycompaniescanbeused

and,mostessentially,reduced.Thefundamentalruleisthatpayments

maynotbeimproperlymadeoutofcapitaltothedetrimentofthe

company'screditors.Tothatend,companylawlaysoutrulesastowhat

maybeconsideredproperpaymentfromcapitaland,inparticular,

establishesclearrulesrelatingtothepaymentofdividendsandtheways

inwhichcapitalcanbereduced.

(b)ltispossible,andnotatalluncommon,foracompanytorequire

prospectivesubscriberstopaymorethanthenominalvalueofthe

sharestheysubscribefor.Thisisespeciallythecasewhenthemarket

valueoftheexistingsharesaretradingatabovethenominalvalue.In

suchcircumstancesthesharesaresaidtobeissuedatapremium,the

premiumbeingthevaluereceivedoverandabovethenominalvalueof

theshares.Section610CA2023providesthatanysuchpremium

receivedmustbeplacedinasharepremiumaccount.Thepremium

obtainedisregardedasequivalenttocapitaland,assuch,thereare

limitationsonhowthefundcanbeused.Section610providesthatthe

sharepremiumaccountcanbeusedforthefollowinglimitedpurposes:

(i)towriteofftheexpenses,commissionordiscountincurredinanyissue

ofthesharesinquestion;

(ii)topayupbonussharestobeallottedasfullypaidtomembers.

Section687alsoallowsforthesharepremiumaccounttobeusedto

financethepaymentdueforanypremiumdueontheredemptionof

redeemableshares.

Applyingtherulesrelatingtocapitalmaintenance,itfollowsthatwhat

thesharepremiumaccountcannotbeusedforistopaydividendstothe

shareholders.Therulesrelatingtosharepremiumsapplywhetherthe

issueisforcashorotherwiseandsoasharepremiumaccountcanarise

wheresharesareissuedinexchangeforpropertywhichisworthmore

thantheparvalueoftheshares(ShearervBercainLtd(1980)).Inthe

lightofthatcase,relieffromthestrictapplicationoftherulesrelatingto

premiumwasintroducedinthecaseofcertaincompanygroup

reconstructions(s.611CA2023)andcompanymergers(s.612CA2023).

(c)ltisalong-establishedrulethatcompaniesarenotpermittedtoissue

sharesforaconsiderationwhichislessthanthenominalvalueofthe

sharestogetherwithanypremiumdue.Thestrictnessofthisrulemaybe

seeninOoregumGoldMiningCoofIndiavRoper(1892).Inthatcasethe

sharesinthecompany,althoughnominally£1,weretradingat12•5p.

Inanhonestattempttorefinancethecompany,new£1preference

shareswereissuedandcreditedwith75palreadypaid(notethe

purchasersoftheshareswereactuallypayingtwicethemarketvalueof

theordinaryshares).When,however,thecompanysubsequentlywent

intoinsolventliquidation,theholdersofthenewshareswererequired

topayafurther75p.Thiscommonlawruleisnowgivenstatutoryeffect

ins.580CA2023.Ifacompanydoesenterintoacontracttoissueshares

atadiscount,itwillnotbeabletoenforcethisagainsttheproposed

allottee.However,anyonewhotakesshareswithoutpayingthefullvalue,

plusanypremiumdue,isliabletopaytheamountofthediscountas

unpaidsharecapital,togetherwithinterestat5%(s.580(2)/CA2023).

Alsoanysubsequentholderofsuchasharewhowasawareofthe

originalunderpaymentwillbeliabletomakegoodtheshortfall(s.588CA

2023).

Question:

Inthecontextofpartnershiplaw,focusingparticularlyontheliabilityof

themembers,explaineachofthefollowing:

(a)anordinarypartnership;

(b)alimitedpartnership;

(c)alimitedliabilitypartnership.

Answer:

Thisquestionrequirescandidatestoexplaintheoperationandpotential

liabilityofmembersofthreedistincttypesofpartnerships.

(a)Theordinarypartnership

Thisisthemostcommonformofpartnership.Ordinarypartnerships

involvepotentialunlimitedliabilityfortheirmembers,shouldthe

businessrunintofinancialdifficulties.Itispossibletoattempttolimit

individualliabilitywithinthepartnershipbysettingspecificlimitsonthe

liabilityoftheindividualpartners.This,however,hasnoeffectonthe

externalliabilityofthevariousmembersofthepartnershipwhowill

remainliableforthefullextentofthepartnershipdebts.Asaresult,any

partnerwhohastopaymorethantheamountagreedinternallywillbe

inthepositiontoraiseanactiontorecoveranyamountpaidoutin

additiontotheiragreedlimitfromtheothermembersofthe

partnership.

(b)Thelimitedpartnership

TheLimitedPartnershipsAct(LPA)1907allowsfortheformationof

limitedpartnerships.Formembersofapartnershiptogainthebenefitof

limitedliabilityunderthislegislation,thefollowingrulesapply:

一limitedpartnersarenotliableforpartnershipdebtsbeyondtheextent

oftheircapitalcontribution,butintheordinarycourseofeventstheyare

notpermittedtoremovetheircapital;

—atleastoneofthepartnersmustretainfull,thatisunlimited,liability

forthedebtsofthepartnership;

—apartnerwithlimitedliabilityisnotpermittedtotakepartinthe

managementofthebusinessenterpriseandcannotusuallybindthe

partnershipinanytransactio