ACCA Paper F4 - remembering case studies for your ACCA exams

It has been said that if someone is stuck in a difficult situation then it should be dealt with smartly and with confidence, and this will help produce a positive outcome. The same thing can be said for the ACCA Paper F4 exam, which many candidates find difficult. The paper comprises of theory linked with different case laws. The Examiner expects candidates to be aware of different cases and apply them appropriately in different scenarios and situations

So, how do you memorise each case that's given in textbooks? The ACCA Paper F4 examiner has said it clearly, that almost every ACCA exam sitting will have scenario based questions requiring students to provide legal advice. It has been observed that even though students work hard at their ACCA study material they are still failing to pass the Paper F4 exam. Students are probably finding it difficult to memorise the facts of the different cases and then to apply them in given scenarios. Exact details are not necessary for the paper but knowledge of the facts of the case under review is important.

Take, for instance, the case of Chappell and Co V Nestle Co from contract law (adequacy and sufficiency of consideration). The case is detailed and quite complicated, but can be memorized in a simple way. The broad details of the case are as follows:

From memory (so might not be fully accurate) Chappell & Co. owned the copyright to musical record ‘Rockin’ shoes’ (by The King Brothers). Nestle was giving away records of it to people who sent in three wrappers from 6d chocolate bars, as well as 1s 6d. The Copyright Act 1956 s8 said a 6.25% royalty needed to be paid on the ‘ordinary retail selling price’ to the owners of copyrights. Nestle said 1s 6d was the ordinary retail selling price and that the used wrappers had no value, but Chappell & Co argued that it should be more and sought an injunction for breach of CA 1956 s 8. In this way the question arose as to whether the wrappers were consideration for the records. Upjohn granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and Chappell & Co appealed.

In the case of Chappell and Co V Nestle Co, it was held that a used chocolate wrapper was consideration sufficient to form a contract even though it had no economic value to Nestle.

The detailed facts of the case can be curtailed in this way, and made more simple to remember. Similar curtailment can be made too other legal case studies. Dealing with case law seems to be difficult but if different cases can be recalled in simple ways then passing the exam will not be so difficult. ACCA Paper F4 students should, however, be aware that they will not be able to achieve strong pass grades without learning, and being able to recall, case studies.