2009年6月ACCA考试 F4真题评分标准

yinjuexin

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.