2009年6月ACCA：F4试题评分标准一

　　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.

[下一页]