ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test

150 Questions | Total Attempts: 46

SettingsSettingsSettings
ACCA Quizzes & Trivia

ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test Corporate and business law is one of the fun topics for an ACCA student to take. It gives them a view of the laws that govern the business industry. How much do you know about English law and the cases you have covered in the class? Give the quiz a try.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    A beneficiary may sue a trustee.
    • A. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

    • B. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • C. 

      Keech v Sandford

    • D. 

      Evans v Cross

  • 2. 
    A claim for damages which is commenced outside a statutory limitation period is barred under the Limitation Act 1980; this is 6 years from the date the breach could have been first discovered.
    • A. 

      Garrod v Scott

    • B. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • C. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

    • D. 

      Lynn v Bamber

  • 3. 
    A counter offer can terminates an offer.
    • A. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • B. 

      Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

    • C. 

      Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Southwestern

    • D. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

  • 4. 
    A manufacturer of goods may be sued by ultimate customers.
    • A. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • B. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • C. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • D. 

      Donaghue v Stevenson

  • 5. 
    A person with special knowledge or skills, or claiming to have them, must excersice them, the required standard is that of a reasonable man of equivalent position.
    • A. 

      Mersy Docks v Coggins

    • B. 

      Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & Others

    • C. 

      Cassidy v Ministry of Health

    • D. 

      Ready Mix Concrete v Ministry of Pensions

  • 6. 
    A plc must hold AGM every calender year.
    • A. 

      Stilk v Myriek

    • B. 

      Gibson v Barton

    • C. 

      Avery v Bowden

    • D. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

  • 7. 
    A request for information is not a counter offer. 
    • A. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • B. 

      Pender v Lushington

    • C. 

      Clarke v Dunraven

    • D. 

      Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders Association

  • 8. 
    A response to request for information is not an offer.   
    • A. 

      Stevenson v McLean

    • B. 

      Harvey v Facey

    • C. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

    • D. 

      Williams v Carwardine

  • 9. 
    A unilateral contract is one where one party promises something in return for some action on the part of another party. Name 2 cases for unilateral contract.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Hoenig v Issacs

    • C. 

      Latimer v AEC

    • D. 

      Errington v Errington

  • 10. 
    Acceptance can be communicated by reliable 3rd party.
    • A. 

      Powell v Lee

    • B. 

      Merritt v Merritt

    • C. 

      Evans v Cross

    • D. 

      Gilford Motor Company v Horne

  • 11. 
    Acceptance cannot vary the original offer; that would be a counter offer.
    • A. 

      R v Clark

    • B. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

    • C. 

      Powell v Lee

    • D. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

  • 12. 
    Acceptance may be by conduct, however, once the person has started the act of acceptance then the offeror cannot revoke.
    • A. 

      Combe v Combe

    • B. 

      Thomas v Thomas

    • C. 

      Beswick v Beswick

    • D. 

      Errington v Errington

  • 13. 
    Acceptance may be by conduct.
    • A. 

      Errington v Errington

    • B. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

    • C. 

      Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries

    • D. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

  • 14. 
    Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror, but offeror may waive the right of communication.
    • A. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • B. 

      Williams v Carwardine

    • C. 

      Re McArdle

    • D. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

  • 15. 
    Acceptance must be made within a reasonable time.
    • A. 

      Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant

    • B. 

      Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

    • C. 

      Jubilee Cotton Mills v Lewes

    • D. 

      Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne

  • 16. 
    Adverts are normally invitations.
    • A. 

      Williams v Roffey

    • B. 

      Daniel v Daniel

    • C. 

      Bushel v Faith

    • D. 

      Patridge v Crittendon

  • 17. 
    Alteration allowing compulsory purchase of minority share will normally be disallowed.
    • A. 

      Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa

    • B. 

      Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel

    • C. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

    • D. 

      Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas

  • 18. 
    Alteration of articles allow explusion of competing members.
    • A. 

      Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese

    • B. 

      Keech v Sandford

    • C. 

      Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers

    • D. 

      Re New British Iron Company

  • 19. 
    Alteration of articles allow explusion of defrauding directors.
    • A. 

      Lamb v Camden

    • B. 

      Lynn v Bamber

    • C. 

      Gunthing v Lynn

    • D. 

      Shuttleworth v Cox Brothers

  • 20. 
    Alteration of articles does not relieve the company of liability for commitments incurred before the change.
    • A. 

      Dunlop v New Garage

    • B. 

      Dunlop v Selfridges

    • C. 

      Ford v Armstrong

    • D. 

      Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw

  • 21. 
    An advert offering reward is an offer, not an invitation.   
    • A. 

      R v Clark

    • B. 

      Hyde v Wrench

    • C. 

      Williams V Carwardine

    • D. 

      Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber

  • 22. 
    Another example of commercial argreements with exclusion clause in it.
    • A. 

      Appleson v Littlewoods

    • B. 

      Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

    • C. 

      Patridge v Crittenden

    • D. 

      Tulk v Moxhay

  • 23. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party choose to wait and hope the other party will change their minds, but may lose their right to sue.
    • A. 

      Rose & Frank v Crompton

    • B. 

      Stewart v Casey

    • C. 

      Avery v Bowden

    • D. 

      Hillas v Arcos

  • 24. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party go ahead with their obligations and then sue.
    • A. 

      Roscorla v Thomas

    • B. 

      Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway

    • C. 

      White v Bluett

    • D. 

      White and Carter Councils v MacGregor

  • 25. 
    Anticipatory breach of contract where the injured party may sue immediately.
    • A. 

      Welby v Drake

    • B. 

      Hochester v De La Tour

    • C. 

      Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

    • D. 

      Combe v Combe