河北省考生想知道ACCA的科目F2怎么备考？

正确答案：
(ii) On the other hand, the job description is based on information gathered from a job analysis and defines the position and role
that has to be fulfilled. It is a statement of the component tasks, duties, objectives and standards. It describes the purpose
and relationships of the specific job together with the physical, social and economic factors which affect it. Fundamentally, it
describes the job to be done.

正确答案：
(a) (i) The transfer price of ￡750 proposed by the IT division is based on cost plus 150% from which it can be deduced that
the total cost of a consulting day is (100/250) x ￡750 = ￡300. This comprises ￡240 (80%) variable cost and ￡60
(20%) fixed cost. In this instance the transfer price should be set at marginal costs plus opportunity cost. It is assumed
in this situation that transferring internally would result in the IT division having a lost contribution of ￡750 – ￡240 =
￡510 per consulting day. The marginal cost of the transfer of services to the HR division is ￡190 (￡240 external variable
costs less ￡50 saving due to use of internal video-conferencing equipment). Adding the opportunity cost of ￡510 gives
a transfer price of ￡700 per consulting day. This is equivalent to using market price as a basis for transfer pricing where
the transfer price is set at the external market price (￡750) less any costs avoided (￡50) by transferring internally.
(ii) There is in effect no external market available for one of the required pairs of consultants within the IT division and
therefore opportunity cost will not apply and transfers should be made at the variable cost per consulting day of ￡190.
The other pair of consultants, who would otherwise be 100% utilised in providing consulting services to external clients,
should be charged at a rate of ￡700 per day which represents marginal cost plus opportunity cost.
(iii) The lost contribution from the major client amounts to ￡264,000/(2 x 240) = ￡550 less variable costs of ￡240 =
￡310 per consulting day. Thus, in this instance the transfer price should be the contribution foregone of ￡310 plus
internal variable costs of ￡190 making a total of ￡500 per consulting day.

正确答案：
(iii) Job enrichment, which is often referred to as ‘vertical job enlargement’, is a planned, deliberate action to build greater responsibility, breadth and challenge into the work of the individual. The emphasis is on the individual rather than the organisation, team or group. This may be a way forward for some of Bailey’s employees since it provides the individual employee with the responsibility for decision making of a higher order, provides greater freedom to decide how the job or task should be undertaken, improves understanding of the entire process, encourages participation in the planning and production procedures and provides regular feedback to management – urgently needed at Bailey’s.

正确答案：

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.