ACCA考试F4真题答案.docx

ACCA考试F4真题答案.docx

《ACCA考试F4真题答案.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ACCA考试F4真题答案.docx（34页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

ACCA考试F4真题答案

Answers

FundamentalsLevel–SkillsModule,PaperF4（ENG）

CorporateandBusinessLaw（English）June2012Answers

1（a）ThedoctrineofbindingprecedentisoneofthecentralprinciplesoftheEnglishlegalsystem.Thedoctrinereferstothefact

that,withinthehierarchicalstructureoftheEnglishcourts,adecisionofahighercourtwillbebindingonacourtlowerthan

itinthathierarchy.Ingeneralterms,thismeansthatwhenjudgestrycases,theywillchecktoseeifasimilarsituationhas

comebeforeacourtpreviously.Iftheprecedentwassetbyacourtofequalorhigherstatustothecourtdecidingthenew

case,thenthejudgeinthepresentcaseshouldfollowtheruleoflawestablishedintheearliercase.Wheretheprecedentis

fromalowercourtinthehierarchy,thejudgeinthenewcasemaynotfollowbutwillcertainlyconsiderit.

TheHierarchyofthecourts

TheSupremeCourt（previouslytheHouseofLords）standsatthesummitoftheEnglishcourtstructureanditsdecisionsare

bindingonallcourtsbelowitinthehierarchy.Asregardsitsownpreviousdecisions,upuntil1966theHouseofLords

regardeditselfasboundbyitspreviousdecisions.InaPracticeStatement（[1966]3AllER77）ofthatyear,however,Lord

GardinerindicatedthattheHouseofLordswouldinfutureregarditselfasfreetodepartfromitspreviousdecisionswhereit

appearedrighttodoso.TherehavebeenanumberofcasesinwhichtheHouseofLordshasoverruledoramendeditsown

earlierdecisions（e.g.ConwayvRimmer（1968）;HerringtonvBritishRailBoard（1972）;MiliangosvGeorgeFrank（Textiles）

Ltd（1976）;RvShivpuri（1986））butthisisnotadiscretionthattheSupremeCourtwillexerciselightly.Ithastobe

recognisedthatinthewidercontexttheSupremeCourtissubjecttodecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofJusticeintermsof

EuropeanCommunitylaw,and,withtheimplementationoftheHumanRightsAct1998,thedecisionsoftheEuropeanCourt

ofJusticeinmattersrelatingtohumanrights.

IncivilcasestheCourtofAppealisgenerallyboundbypreviousdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtanditsownprevious

decisions.Thereare,however,anumberofexceptionstothisgeneralrule.Theseexceptionsarisewhere:

（i）thereisaconflictbetweentwopreviousdecisionsoftheCourtofAppeal.

（ii）apreviousdecisionoftheCourtofAppealhasbeenoverruledbytheSupremeCourt.TheCourtofAppealcanignorea

previousdecisionofitsownwhichisinconsistentwithEuropeanCommunitylaworwithalaterdecisionoftheEuropean

Court.

（iii）thepreviousdecisionwasgivenperincuriam,i.e.inignoranceofsomeauthoritythatwouldhaveledtoadifferent

conclusion（YoungvBristolAeroplaneCoLtd（1944））.

Courtsinthecriminaldivision,however,arenotboundtofollowtheirownpreviousdecisionswhichtheysubsequently

considertohavebeenbasedoneitheramisunderstandingoramisapplicationofthelaw.

TheDivisionalCourtsoftheHighCourtareboundbythedoctrineofstaredecisisinthenormalwayandmustfollowdecisions

oftheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppeal.Theyarealsonormallyboundbytheirownpreviousdecisions,althoughin

civilcasesitmaymakeuseoftheexceptionsopentotheCourtofAppealinYoungvBristolAeroplaneCoLtd,andincriminal

appealcasestheQueen’sBenchDivisionalCourtmayrefusetofollowitsownearlierdecisionswhereitfeelstheearlier

decisiontohavebeenincorrectlymade.

TheHighCourtisboundbythedecisionsofsuperiorcourts.DecisionsbyindividualHighCourtJudgesarebindingoncourts

inferiorinthehierarchy,butsuchdecisionsarenotbindingonotherHighCourtJudgesalthoughtheyareofstrongpersuasive

authorityandtendtobefollowedinpractice.

Crowncourtscannotcreateprecedentandtheirdecisionscanneveramounttomorethanpersuasiveauthority.Countycourts

andmagistrates’courtsdonotcreateprecedents.

（b）Bindingprecedent

Ifaprecedentwassetbyacourtofequalorhigherstatustothecourtdecidingthenewcase,thenthejudgeinthepresent

caseshouldnormallyfollowtheruleoflawestablishedintheearliercase.

Persuasiveprecedent

Fromtheforegoingitcanbeseenthatcourtshigherinthehierarchyarenotboundtofollowthereasoningofcourtsatalower

levelinthathierarchy.However,thehighercourtswillconsider,andindeedmayadopt,thereasoningofthelowercourt.As

aconsequenceofthefactthatthehighercourtisatlibertynottofollowthereasoninginthelowercourtsuchdecisionsare

saidtobeofpersuasiveratherthanbindingauthority.ItshouldalsobeborneinmindthatEnglishcourtsareinnowaybound

tofollowthereasoningofcourtsindifferentjurisdictions,anditshouldberememberedthatforthispurposeScotlandqualifies

ashavingitsownlegalsystem.However,whereacourtfromanotherjurisdictionhasconsideredapointoflawthat

subsequentlyarisesinanEnglishcase,theEnglishcourtswillreviewthereasoningoftheforeigncourtsandmayfollowtheir

reasoningiftheyfinditsufficientlypersuasive.

7

2（a）Invitationtotreat

Invitationstotreataredistinctfromoffersinthatratherthanbeingofferstoothers,theyareinfactinvitationstoothersto

makeoffers.Thepersontowhomtheinvitationtotreatismadebecomestheactualofferor,andthemakeroftheinvitation

becomestheofferee.Anessentialconsequenceofthisdistinctionisthat,inlinewiththeordinaryrulesofofferand

acceptance,thepersonextendingtheinvitationtotreatisnotboundtoacceptanyofferssubsequentlymadetothem.

Thefollowingareexamplesofcommonsituationsinvolvinginvitationstotreat:

（i）thedisplayofgoodsinashopwindow–TheclassiccaseinthisareaisFishervBell（1961）inwhichashopkeeper

wasprosecutedforofferingoffensiveweaponsforsale,byhavingflick-knivesondisplayinhiswindow.Itwasheldthat

theshopkeeperwasnotguiltyasthedisplayintheshopwindowwasnotanofferforsalebutonlyaninvitationtotreat.

（ii）thedisplayofgoodsontheshelfofaself-serviceshop–InthisinstancetheexemplarycaseisPharmaceuticalSociety

ofGreatBritainvBootsCashChemists（1953）.Thedefendantswerechargedwithbreakingalawwhichprovidedthat

certaindrugscouldonlybesoldunderthesupervisionofaqualifiedpharmacist.Theyhadplacedthedrugsonopen

displayintheirself-servicestoreand,althoughaqualifiedpersonwasstationedatthecashdesk,itwasallegedthatthe

contractofsalehadbeenformedwhenthecustomerremovedthegoodsfromtheshelf.ItwasheldthatBootswerenot

guilty.Thedisplayofgoodsontheshelfwasonlyaninvitationtotreat.Inlaw,thecustomerofferedtobuythegoodsat

thecashdeskwherethepharmacistwasstationed.

（iii）apublicadvertisement–Onceagainthisdoesnotamounttoanoffer.ThiscanbeseenfromPartridgevCrittenden

（1968）inwhichapersonwaschargedwith‘offering’awildbirdforsalecontrarytoProtectionofBirdsAct1954,after

hehadplacedanadvertrelatingtothesaleofsuchbirdsinamagazine.Itwasheldthathecouldnotbeguiltyofoffering

thebirdforsaleastheadvertamountedtonomorethananinvitationtotreat.

（iv）ashareprospectus–Contrarytocommonunderstandingsuchadocumentisnotanoffer.Itismerelyaninvitationto

treat,invitingpeopletomakeofferstosubscribeforsharesinacompany.

（b）Atender

Thisformofinvitationtotreatariseswhereonepartywishesparticularworktobedoneandissuesastatementasking

interestedpartiestosubmitthetermsonwhichtheyarewillingtocarryoutthework.Inthecaseoftenders,thepersonwho

invitesthetenderissimplymakinganinvitationtotreat.Thepersonwhosubmitsatenderistheofferorandtheotherparty

isatlibertytoacceptorrejecttheofferastheyplease.

Theeffectofacceptancedependsuponthewordingoftheinvitationtotender.Iftheinvitationstatesthatthepotential

purchaserwillrequiretobesuppliedwithacertainquantityofgoods,thenacceptanceofatenderwillformacontractand

theywillbeinbreachiftheyfailtoorderthestatedquantityofgoodsfromthepersonsubmittingthetender.If,ontheother

hand,theinvitationstatesonlythatthepotentialpurchasermayrequiregoods,acceptancegivesriseonlytoastandingoffer.

Inthissituationthereisnocompulsiononthepurchasertotakeanygoods,buttheymustnotdealwithanyothersupplier.

Eachordergivenformsaseparatecontractandthesuppliermustdeliveranygoodsrequiredwithinthetimestatedinthe

tender.Thesuppliercanrevokethestandingofferbuttheymustsupplyanygoodsalreadyordered（GreatNorthernRailway

vWitham（1873））.

3Atortisawrongfulactagainstanindividualwhichgivesrisetoanon-contractualcivilclaim.Theclaimisusuallyfordamages,

althoughotherremediesareavailable.Liabilityintortisusuallybasedonprincipleoffault,althoughthereareexceptions.

Negligenceisrecognisedasthemostimportantofthetorts,itsaimbeingtoprovidecompensationforthoseinjuredthroughthe

faultofsomeotherperson.However,anindividualisnotautomaticallyliableforeverynegligentactthatheorshecommitsand

inordertosustainanactioninnegligenceitmustbeshownthatthepartyatfaultowedadutyofcaretothepersoninjuredasa

resultoftheiractions.Consequently,theonusisontheclaimanttoestablishthattherespondentowedthemadutyofcare.Even

thentherearedefencesavailableforthedefendantinatortaction.

（a）Althoughnotstrictlyadefencefornegligence,theapplicationoftheconceptofcontributorynegligencecanbeusedtoredu