[真题]2020年ACCAF4考试：有关合同法的相关考题

正确答案：
(a) (i) In order to facilitate BAG profit maximising decisions the following strategy should apply:
Division C should offer to transfer chemical CC to Division B at marginal cost plus opportunity cost. This would apply
as follows:
– 40,000 kilograms of CC at $105 per kilogram since this is the price that could be achieved from sales to external
customers of BAG.
– 60,000 kilograms of CC at marginal cost of $50 per kilogram since no alternative opportunity exists.
Division B has a sales forecast of 360,000 litres of product BF. This will require 360,000/4 = 90,000 kilograms of
chemical CC input.
Based on the pricing by Division C indicated above, Division B would choose to purchase 60,000 kilograms of CC from
Division C at $50 per kilogram, since this is less than the $55 per kilogram quoted by the independent supplier.
Division B would purchase its remaining requirement for 30,000 kilograms of CC from the independent supplier at $55
per kilogram since this is less than the $105 per kilogram at which Division C would offer to transfer its remaining output
– given that it can sell the residual output to external customers of BAG.

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).

正确答案：
(b) Continuous auditing
Continuous auditing is a methodology that enables independent auditors to give written assurance on a subject matter (e.g.
inventory levels, receivables balances, financial statements) using a series of auditor’s reports issued simultaneously with (or
a short period of time after) the occurrence of events underlying the subject matter. Thus it increases the frequency of
reporting (e.g. may be issued daily, weekly).
Technological development is making increasingly sophisticated information systems available to more entities at a decreasing
cost. This has promoted a more widespread dependence on technology to produce more timely information. This has
increased the demand for timely assurance on the information provided. Auditors have had to respond with highly automated
procedures and audit tools that are integrated with the entity’s systems and controls.
Tutorial note: XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) increases the viability of continuous auditing. It provides a
widely agreed-upon set of descriptors for elements in a business report that can be read and interpreted by computer
systems. It allows an auditor to review data at any stage and determine the origin of the information and the controls that
have been incorporated.
Results of automated audit procedures must be communicated promptly, particularly if anomalies or errors identified require
that follow-up procedures be performed by audit personnel. Secure electronic communication links are therefore essential.
As entities’ reporting has moved from annual and interim reports to the monthly/daily/weekly reporting of key performance
indicators (‘KPIs’)/critical success factors (‘CSFs’), the professional accountant’s assignment has expanded from the audit of
financial statements. For example, to review reports (e.g. on interim financial statements), special purpose reports (e.g. on
the effectiveness of [outsourced] control procedures) to continuous auditing reports.
For continuous audits, auditors’ reports need to be produced automatically and safeguarded against unauthorised changes.
Reports may be ‘evergreen’ (i.e. always available to users and dated at the time of access to the information) or ‘on demand’
(i.e. available when specifically requested and dated at the time of request).
Auditors must be technically proficient to handle any engagement undertaken. For continuous audit assurance engagements
that will require a high level of expertise in various aspects of information technology as well as a sound grasp of the subject
matter being audited.
Continuous audit work requires the frequent or continuous use of audit tools integrated with the client’s systems. For example
embedded audit modules (EAMs) are subroutines that perform. control or audit procedures concurrently with the client’s
normal application processing.