2025年ACCA考試試題及答案

ACCA考試試題及答案

Question:

(a)InrelationtotheEnglishlegalsystem,explainthemeaningof:

(i)criminallaw;

(ii)civillaw.

(b)Explainthehierarchyofcourtsdealingwithcriminallaw.

Answer:

(a)(i)CriminallawrelatestoconductwhichtheStateconsiderswithdisapprovalandwhichitseekstocontrol.Criminallawinvolvestheenforcementofparticularformsofbehaviour,andtheState,astherepresentativeofsociety,actspositivelytoensurecompliance.Thus,criminalcasesarebroughtbytheStateinthenameoftheCrownandcasesarereportedintheformofReginav…(ReginaissimplyLatinfor‘queen’andcasereferencesareusuallyabbreviatedtoRv...).Incriminallawtheprosecutorprosecutesadefendant(or‘theaccused’)andisrequiredtoprovethatthedefendantisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.TheCompaniesAct(CA)006setsoutmanypotentialcriminaloffences,whichmaybecommittedbyeitherthecompanyitself,oritsofficersorotherindividuals.Anexampleofthiswhichmaybecitediss.993,whichrelatestothecriminaloffenceoffraudulenttradingandappliestoanyperson,notjustdirectorsormembers,whoisknowinglyapartytothecarryingonofabusinesswiththeintenttodefraudcreditors.Thepotentialpenaltyonconvictionisimprisonmentforamaximumperiodof10years,orafineorboth.

(ii)Civillaw,ontheotherhand,isaformofprivatelawandinvolvestherelationshipsbetweenindividualcitizens.Itisthelegalmechanismthroughwhichindividualscanassertclaimsagainstothersandhavethoserightsadjudicatedandenforced.Thepurposeofcivillawistosettledisputesbetweenindividualsandtoprovideremedies;itisnotconcernedwithpunishmentassuch.TheroleoftheStateinrelationtocivillawistoestablishthegeneralframeworkoflegalrulesandtoprovidethelegalinstitutionstooperatethoserights,buttheactivationofthecivillawisstrictlyamatterfortheindividualsconcerned.

Contract,tortandpropertylawaregenerallyaspectsofcivillaw.

Civilcasesarereferredtobythenamesofthepartiesinvolvedinthedispute,forexample,SmithvJones.Incivillaw,aclaimantsues(or‘bringsaclaimagainst’)adefendantandthedegreeofproofisonthebalanceofprobabilities.InrelationtotheCA006,thedutiesowedtocompaniesbydirectorssetoutinss.171–177maybecitedasexamplesofcivilliability,anddirectorsinbreachareliabletorecompensethecompanyfortheconsequencesoftheirfailuretocomplywiththoseduties,asissetoutins.178.

Indistinguishingbetweencriminalandcivilactions,ithastoberememberedthatthesameeventmaygiverisetoboth.Forexample,wherethedriverofacarinjuressomeonethroughtheirrecklessdriving,theywillbeliabletobeprosecutedundertheRoadTrafficlegislation,butatthesametime,theywillalsoberesponsibletotheinjuredpartyinthecivillawrelatingtothetortofnegligence.Similarly,adirectormayfallfoulofboththecriminalregulationoffraudulenttrading(s.993CA006)aswellasbreachingtheirdutytothecompanyunderoneoftheprovisionsofss.171–177CA006.

(b)Theessentialcriminaltrialcourtsarethemagistrates’courtsandCrownCourts.Inseriousoffences,knownasindictableoffences,thedefendantistriedbyajudgeandjuryinaCrownCourt.Forlessseriousoffences,knownassummaryoffences,thedefendantistriedbymagistrates;andfor‘eitherway’offences,thedefendantcanbetriedbymagistratesiftheyagreebutthedefendantmayelectforjurytrial.

CriminalappealsfromthemagistratesgototheCrownCourtortotheQueen’sBenchDivision(QBD)DivisionalCourt‘bywayofcasestated’onapointoflaworthatthemagistrateswentbeyondtheirproperpowers.

FurtherappealistotheCourtofAppeal(CriminalDivision)andthentotheSupremeCourtonasignificantpointoflaw.

Question：

Inrelationtothelawofcontract,explaintherulesrelatingto：

(a)acceptanceofanoffer;

(b)revocationofanoffer.

Answer：

Thisquestionrequiresanexplanationoftherulesrelatingtotheacceptanceandrevocationofoffersincontractlaw.

(a)Acceptanceisnecessaryfortheformationofacontract.Oncetheoffereehasacceptedthetermsoffered,acontractcomesintoeffect.Bothpartiesarebound：theofferorcannolongerwithdrawtheiroffer,norcantheoffereewithdrawtheiracceptance.Therulesrelatingtoacceptanceare：

(i)Acceptancemustcorrespondwiththetermsoftheoffer.Thus,theoffereemustnotseektointroducenewcontractualtermsintotheiracceptance(NealevMerrett(1930)).

(ii)Acounter-offerdoesnotconstituteacceptance(HydevWrench(1840)).Analogously,aconditionalacceptancecannotcreateacontractualrelationship(WinnvBull(1877)).

(iii)Acceptancemaybeintheformofexpresswords,eitheroralorwritten.Alternatively,acceptancemaybeimpliedfromconduct(BrogdenvMetropolitanRailwayCo(1877)).

(iv)Generally,acceptancemustbecommunicatedtotheofferor.Consequently,silencecannotamounttoacceptance(FelthousevBindley(1863)).

(v)Communicationofacceptanceisnotnecessary,however,wheretheofferorhaswaivedtherighttoreceivecommunication.Thusinunilateralcontracts,suchasCarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo(1893),acceptanceoccurredwhentheoffereeperformedtherequiredact.Thus,intheCarlillcase,MrsCarlilldidnothavetoinformtheSmokeBallCothatshehadusedtheirtreatment.

(vi)Whereacceptanceiscommunicatedthroughthepostalservice,thenitiscompleteassoonastheletter,properlyaddressedandstamped,isposted.Thecontractisconcludedevenifthelettersubsequentlyfailstoreachtheofferor(AdamsvLindsell(1818)).However,thepostalrulewillonlyapplywhereitisinthecontemplationofthepartiesthatthepostwillbeusedasthemeansofacceptance.Ifthepartieshavenegotiatedeitherfacetoface,inashop,forexample,oroverthetelephone,thenitmightnotbereasonablefortheoffereetousethepostasameansofcommunicatingtheiracceptanceandtheywouldnotgainthebenefitofthepostalrule.

Thepostalruleappliesequallytotelegrams(ByrnevVanTienhoven(1880)).Itdoesnotapply,however,whenmeansofinstantaneouscommunicationareused(EntoresvMilesFarEastCorp(1955)).

Inordertoexpresslyexcludetheoperationofthepostalrule,theofferorcaninsistthatacceptanceisonlytobeeffectiveonreceipt(HolwellSecuritiesvHughes(1974)).Theofferorcanalsorequirethatacceptancebecommunicatedinaparticularmanner.Wheretheofferordoesnotinsistthatacceptancecanonlybemadeinthestatedmanner,thenacceptanceiseffectiveifitiscommunicatedinawaynolessadvantageoustotheofferor(YatesBuildingCovJPulleyn&Sons(1975)).

(b)Revocationisthetechnicaltermforthecancellationofanofferandoccurswhentheofferorwithdrawstheiroffer.Therulesrelatingtorevocationare：

(i)Anoffermayberevokedatanytimebeforeacceptance.However,oncerevocationhasoccurred,itisnolongeropentotheoffereetoaccepttheoriginaloffer(RoutledgevGrant(1828)).

(ii)Revocationisnoteffectiveuntilitisactuallyreceivedbytheofferee.Thismeansthattheofferormustmakesurethattheoffereeismadeawareofthewithdrawaloftheoffer,otherwiseitmightstillbeopentotheoffereetoaccepttheoffer(ByrnevTienhoven(1880)).

(iii)Communicationofrevocationmaybemadethroughareliablethirdparty.Wheretheoffereefindsoutaboutthewithdrawaloftheofferfromareliablethirdparty,therevocationiseffectiveandtheoffereecannolongerseektoaccepttheoriginaloffer(DickinsonvDodds(1876)).

(iv)Apromisetokeepanofferopenisonlybindingwherethereisaseparatecontracttothateffect.Suchanagreementisknownasanoptioncontract,anditmustbesupportedbyseparateconsiderationforthepromisetokeeptheofferopen.

(v)Inrelationtounilateralcontracts,i.e.acontractwhereonepartypromisessomethinginreturnforsomeactiononthepartofanotherparty,revocationisnotpermissibleoncetheoffereehasstartedperformingthetaskrequested(ErringtonvErrington&Woods(1952)).

Question:

InrelationtotheTORTOFNEGLIGENCE,explain:

(a)thestandardofcareowedbyonepersontoanother;

(b)remotenessofdamage.

Answer:

(a)Thelawdoesnotrequireunreasonablestepstobetakentoavoidbreachingadutyofcare.Inlegalterms,abreachofdutyofcareoccursifthedefendantfails:

'……todosomethingwhichareasonableman,guideduponthoseconsiderationswhichordinarilyregulatetheconductofhumanaffairs,woulddo;ordoingsomethingwhichaprudentandreasonablemanwouldnotdo.'(BlythvBirminghamWaterworksCo(1856))

Thusthefactthatthedefendanthasactedlessskilfullythanthereasonablepersonwouldexpectwillusuallyresultinabreachbeingestablished.Thisisthecaseevenwherethedefendantisinexperiencedintheirparticulartradeoractivity.Forexample,alearnerdrivermustdriveinthemannerofadriverofskill,experienceandcare(NettleshipvWeston(1971)).However,thestandardofcareexpectedfromachildmaybelowerthanthatofanadult(MullinvRichards(1998)).

Clearlythedegree,orstandard,ofcaretobeexercisedbysuchareasonablepersonwillvarydependingoncircumstances,butthefollowingfactorswillbetakenintoconsiderationindeterminingtheissue:

(i)Theseriousnessoftherisk

Thedegreeofcaremustbebalancedagainstthedegreeofriskinvolvedifthedefendantfailsintheirduty.Itfollows,therefore,thatthegreatertheriskofinjuryorthemorelikelyitistooccur,themorethedefendantwillhavetodotofulfiltheirduty.Thedegreeofcaretobeexercisedbythedefendantmaybeincreasediftheclaimantisveryyoung,oldorlessablebodiedinsomeway.Theruleisthat'youmusttakeyourvictimasyoufindhim'(thisisknownastheegg-shellskullrule).

InHaleyvLondonElectricityBoard(1965)thedefendants,inordertocarryoutrepairs,hadmadeaholeinthepavement.TheprecautionstakenbytheElectricityBoardweresufficienttosafeguardasightedperson,butHaley,whowasblind,fellintothehole,strikinghisheadonthepavement,andbecamedeafasaconsequence.ItwasheldthattheElectricityBoardwasinbreachofitsdutyofcaretopedestrians.Ithadfailedtoensurethattheexcavationwassafeforallpedestrians,notjustsightedpersons.Itwasclearlynotreasonablysafeforblindpersons,yetitwasforeseeablethattheymightusethepavement.

Thedegreeofriskhastobebalancedagainstthesocialutilityandimportanceofthedefendant'sactivity.Forexample,inWattvHertfordshireCC(1954),theinjurysustainedbytheplaintiff,afireman,whilstgettingtoanemergencysituation,wasnotacceptedasbeingtheresultofabreachofdutyofcareas,inthecircumstances,timewasnotavailabletotakethemeasureswhichwouldhaveremovedtherisk.

(ii)Costandpracticability

Anyforeseeableriskhastobebalancedagainstthemeasuresnecessarytoeliminateit.Ifthecostofthesemeasuresfaroutweighstherisk,thedefendantwillprobablynotbeinbreachofdutyforfailingtocarryoutthosemeasures(LatimervAECLtd(1952)).

(iii)Skilledpersons

Individualswhoholdthemselvesoutashavingparticularskillsarenotjudgedagainstthestandardofthereasonableperson,butthereasonablepersonpossessingthesameprofessionalskillastheypurporttohave(RoevMinisterofHealth(1954)).

(b)Thepositioninnegligenceisthatthepersonultimatelyliableindamagesisonlyresponsibletotheextentthatthelosssustainedwasconsiderednottobetooremote.ThetestforremotenesswasestablishedinTheWagonMound(No1)(1961).

ThedefendantsnegligentlyallowedfurnaceoiltospillfromashipintoSydneyharbour,whichsubsequentlycausedafire,whichspreadto,anddamaged,theplaintiff'swharf.Althoughthedefendantswereheldtobeinbreachoftheirdutyofcare,theywereonlyliableforthedamagecausedtothewharfandslipwaythroughthefoulingoftheoil.Theywerenotliableforthedamagecausedbyfirebecausedamagebyfirewasatthattimeunforeseeable(theoilhadahighignitionpointanditcouldnotbeforeseenthatitwouldigniteonwater).

Question:

Inthecontextofpaymentforsharesissuedbyacompany,explainthemeaningandlegaleffectofthefollowing:

(a)capitalmaintenance;

(b)issuingsharesatapremium;

(c)issuingsharesatadiscount.

Answer:

(a)Shareholdersinlimitedliabilitycompaniesenjoythebenefitoflimitedliabilityandusuallycannotberequiredtopaymorethanthevalueofthesharestheytakeintheircompany.However,thatprivilegeisonlyextendedtothemonthebasisthattheyfullysubscribetothecompany‘scapital.Inturn,thatcapitalisseenasafundagainstwhichcreditorscanclaimintheeventofadispute.Capitalmaintenancereferstothewayinwhichthecapitalfundoflimitedliabilitycompaniescanbeusedand,mostessentially,reduced.Thefundamentalruleisthatpaymentsmaynotbeimproperlymadeoutofcapitaltothedetrimentofthecompany‘screditors.Tothatend,companylawlaysoutrulesastowhatmaybeconsideredproperpaymentfromcapitaland,inparticular,establishesclearrulesrelatingtothepaymentofdividendsandthewaysinwhichcapitalcanbereduced.

(b)Itispossible,andnotatalluncommon,foracompanytorequireprospectivesubscriberstopaymorethanthenominalvalueofthesharestheysubscribefor.Thisisespeciallythecasewhenthemarketvalueoftheexistingsharesaretradingatabovethenominalvalue.Insuchcircumstancesthesharesaresaidtobeissuedatapremium,thepremiumbeingthevaluereceivedoverandabovethenominalvalueoftheshares.Section610CAprovidesthatanysuchpremiumreceivedmustbeplacedinasharepremiumaccount.Thepremiumobtainedisregardedasequivalenttocapitaland,assuch,therearelimitationsonhowthefundcanbeused.Section610providesthatthesharepremiumaccountcanbeusedforthefollowinglimitedpurposes:

(i)towriteofftheexpenses,commissionordiscountincurredinanyissueofthesharesinquestion;

(ii)topayupbonussharestobeallottedasfullypaidtomembers.

Section687alsoallowsforthesharepremiumaccounttobeusedtofinancethepaymentdueforanypremiumdueontheredemptionofredeemableshares.

Applyingtherulesrelatingtocapitalmaintenance,itfollowsthatwhatthesharepremiumaccountcannotbeusedforistopaydividendstotheshareholders.Therulesrelatingtosharepremiumsapplywhethertheissueisforcashorotherwiseandsoasharepremiumaccountcanarisewheresharesareissuedinexchangeforpropertywhichisworthmorethantheparvalueoftheshares(ShearervBercainLtd(1980)).Inthelightofthatcase,relieffromthestrictapplicationoftherulesrelatingtopremiumwasintroducedinthecaseofcertaincompanygroupreconstructions(s.611CA)andcompanymergers(s.612CA).

(c)Itisalong-establishedrulethatcompaniesarenotpermittedtoissuesharesforaconsiderationwhichislessthanthenominalvalueofthesharestogetherwithanypremiumdue.ThestrictnessofthisrulemaybeseeninOoregumGoldMiningCoofIndiavRoper(1892).Inthatcasethesharesinthecompany,althoughnominally￡1,weretradingat12·5p.Inanhonestattempttorefinancethecompany,new￡1preferenceshareswereissuedandcreditedwith75palreadypaid(notethepurchasersoftheshareswereactuallypayingtwicethemarketvalueoftheordinaryshares).When,however,thecompanysubsequentlywentintoinsolventliquidation,theholdersofthenewshareswererequiredtopayafurther75p.Thiscommonlawruleisnowgivenstatutoryeffectins.580CA.Ifacompanydoesenterintoacontracttoissuesharesatadiscount,itwillnotbeabletoenforcethisagainsttheproposedallottee.However,anyonewhotakesshareswithoutpayingthefullvalue,plusanypremiumdue,isliabletopaytheamountofthediscountasunpaidsharecapital,togetherwithinterestat5%(s.580(2)/CA).Alsoanysubsequentholderofsuchasharewhowasawareoftheoriginalunderpaymentwillbeliabletomakegoodtheshortfall(s.588CA).

Question:

Inthecontextofpartnershiplaw,focusingparticularlyontheliabilityofthemembers,explaineachofthefollowing:

(a)anordinarypartnership;

(b)alimitedpartnership;

(c)alimitedliabilitypartnership.

Answer:

Thisquestionrequirescandidatestoexplaintheoperationandpotentialliabilityofmembersofthreedistincttypesofpartnerships.

(a)Theordinarypartnership

Thisisthemostcommonformofpartnership.Ordinarypartnershipsinvolvepotentialunlimitedliabilityfortheirmembers,shouldthebusinessrunintofinancialdifficulties.Itispossibletoattempttolimitindividualliabilitywithinthepartnershipbysettingspecificlimitsontheliabilityoftheindividualpartners.This,however,hasnoeffectontheexternalliabilityofthevariousmembersofthepartnershipwhowillremainliableforthefullextentofthepartnershipdebts.Asaresult,anypartnerwhohastopaymorethantheamountagreedinternallywillbeinthepositiontoraiseanactiontorecoveranyamountpaidoutinadditiontotheiragreedlimitfromtheothermembersofthepartnership.

(b)Thelimitedpartnership

TheLimitedPartnershipsAct(LPA)1907allowsfortheformationoflimitedpartnerships.Formembersofapartnershiptogainthebenefitoflimitedliabilityunderthislegislation,thefollowingrulesapply:

—limitedpartnersarenotliableforpartnershipdebtsbeyondtheextentoftheircapitalcontribution,butintheordinarycourseofeventstheyarenotpermittedtoremovetheircapital;

—atleastoneofthepartnersmustretainfull,thatisunlimited,liabilityforthedebtsofthepartnership;

—apartnerwithlimitedliabilityisnotpermittedtotakepartinth