2009年6月ACCA考试 F4真题评分标准

2009年6月ACCA考试 F4真题评分标准


1 This question requires candidates to examine the doctrine of precedent and how it

operates within three different legal systems one of which is the English legal system.
　　8-10 marks Good explanation of the way that precedent operates in two systems. It is

necessary that candidates will refer to the Common Law system.
　　5-7 marks Sound explanation but lacking in detail or perhaps slightly unbalanced. A

maximum of 6 marks only is possible if the candidate only deals with the English legal

system.
　　3-4 marks Weak explanation or very unbalanced answer.
　　0-2 marks Little or no understanding.
　　2 （a） This part of the question requires candidates to assess the relative advantages

and disadvantages of court proceedings and arbitration. The main focus may be placed on

arbitration， but the court system must also be considered.
　　4-5 marks Good explanation of the meaning of arbitration as opposed to the court system

， together with a sound assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of both.
　　2-3 marks Fair explanation of both systems but perhaps lacking in detail or examples.

Perhaps only dealing with arbitration without the required evaluation.
　　0-1 mark Very unbalanced answer or lacking any detail and evaluation.
　　（b） This part of the question requires candidates to explain certain key terms in

relation to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration； i.e.

statements of claim and statements of defence.
　　4-5 marks Good explanation of the meaning and effect of both terms.
　　2-3 marks Sound explanation but lacking in detail or perhaps slightly unbalanced.
　　0-1 mark Weak explanation or very unbalanced answer.
　　3 This question requires candidates to explain the obligations relating to price placed

on the purchaser under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
　　8-10 marks Thorough answers which show a detailed knowledge of the operation of the

convention.
　　5-7 marks Fair explanation of the operation of the convention， but perhaps unbalanced

and lacking in detail.
　　0-4 marks Some basic knowledge of the provisions of the convention， but no real depth

of understanding. Perhaps a very unbalanced answer that only deals with one part of the

question.
　　4 （a） 3-4 marks Good explanation of the rules relating to company names.
　　0-2 marks Some but limited knowledge of the control over company names.
　　（b） 3-4 marks Good explanation of the action of ＆passing off＊ with case authority

to support the explanation.
　　0-2 marks Some but limited knowledge of ＆passing off＊ or control over company names.
　　（c） 2 marks Good explanation of the role of the company names adjudicators and why

they are necessary.
　　0-1 mark Little if any knowledge of the concept.
　　5 （a） 3-4 marks Thorough explanation of the doctrine of capital maintenance perhaps

with some examples of its application.
　　0-2 marks Some knowledge but lacking in detail.
　　（b） 4-6 marks Good to full consideration of the procedure for reducing capital.

Reference must be made to the 2006 Act procedure and the difference between public and

private companies should be mentioned specifically.
　　2-3 marks Some general knowledge but lacking in detail as regards to the process or not

mentioning the difference between the two company forms.
　　0-1 mark Little or no understanding of the process.

[NextPage]
　　6 This question requires candidates to explain the operation of the Company Directors

Disqualification Act 1986.
　　8-10 marks Thorough to complete answers， showing a detailed understanding of the

legislation.
　　5-7 marks A clear understanding of the topic， but perhaps lacking in detail.
　　2-4 marks Some knowledge， although perhaps not clearly expressed， or very limited in

its knowledge and understanding of the topic.
　　0-1 mark Little or no knowledge of the topic.
　　7 This question is divided into two parts and requires candidates to explain some

essential terms in relation to the United Nations Convention on International Bills Of

Exchange and International Promissory Notes：
　　（a） Requires a definition of what is actually meant by an international bill of

exchange.
　　3-4 marks A thorough explanation of the topic with references to the Convention

provisions.
　　0-2 marks Some but little or no understanding of the topic.
　　（b） Requires an explanation of the roles of some specific parties.
　　5-6 marks A thorough explanation of the meaning and operation of endorsement
　　2-4 marks Some general understanding， but perhaps lacking in specific information.
　　0-1 mark Little if any understanding.
　　8 This question requires candidates to explain the circumstances under which a party

can avoid a contract under the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods on the

grounds of anticipatory breach of contract. It requires candidates to analyse a problem

scenario and explain and apply the law appropriately.
　　8-10 marks Good to complete answer which shows thorough knowledge of the appropriate

provisions of the convention and applies them accurately.
　　5-7 marks Fair explanation of the convention as it applies to anticipatory breach of

contract， but perhaps lacking in detail， or only dealing well with one aspect.
　　0-4 marks Some basic knowledge of what is involved in anticipatory breach under the

Convention， but no real depth of understanding. Perhaps an unbalanced answer that only

deals with one part of the question.
　　9 This question requires a consideration of the statutory duties placed on company

directors under the Companies Act 2006.
　　8-10 marks Thorough to complete answers， showing a detailed understanding of the rules

relating to conflict of interest.
　　5-7 marks A clear understanding of the topic but perhaps lacking in detail or

application.
　　2-4 marks Some knowledge， although perhaps not clearly expressed， or very limited in

its application.
　　0-1 mark Little or no knowledge of the topic.
　　10 This question requires candidates to explain the meaning and regulation of the two

criminal offences of insider dealing and money laundering and apply that law to a problem

scenario.
　　8-10 marks Clear analysis of the problem scenario - recognition of both the criminal

law issues raised and a convincing application of the legal principles to the facts.
　　6-7 marks Sound analysis of the problem - recognition of the major principles involved

and a fair attempt at applying them. Perhaps sound in knowledge but lacking in analysis and

application.
　　3-5 marks Unbalanced answer perhaps showing some appropriate knowledge but weak in

analysis or application.
　　0-2 marks Very weak answer showing little analysis， appropriate knowledge or

application.