澳门大学生在校期间备考ACCA有什么优势?

正确答案：
(a) Importance of independence
The auditor must be materially independent of the client for the following reasons:
To increase credibility and to underpin confidence in the process. In an external audit, this will primarily be for the benefit of
the shareholders and in an internal audit, it will often be for the audit committee that is, in turn, the recipient of the internal
audit report.
To ensure the reliability of the audit report. Any evidence of lack of independence (or ‘capture’) has the potential to undermine
all or part of the audit report thus rendering the exercise flawed.
To ensure the effectiveness of the investigation of the process being audited. An audit, by definition, is only effective as a
means of interrogation if the parties are independent of each other.
Three threats to independence
There are three threats to independence described in the case.
The same audit partner (Zachary) was assigned to Van Buren in eight consecutive years. This is an association threat and is
a contravention of some corporate governance codes. Both Sarbanes-Oxley and the Smith Guidance (contained in the UK
Combined Code), for example, specify auditor rotation to avoid association threat.
Fillmore Pierce provides more than one service to the same client. One of the threats to independence identified between
Arthur Andersen and Enron after the Enron collapse was an over-dependence on Enron by Andersen arising from the provision
of several services to the same client. Good practice is not to offer additional services to audit clients to avoid the appearance
of compromised independence. Some corporate governance codes formally prohibit this.
The audit partner (Zachary) is an old friend of the financial director of Van Buren (Frank). This ‘familiarity’ threat should be
declared to Fillmore Pierce at the outset and it may disqualify Zachary from acting as audit partner on the Van Buren account.

正确答案：

The essential issues to be disentangled from the problem scenario relate to breach of contract and the remedies available for such breach.
There seems to be no doubt that there is a contractual agreement between Arti and Bee Ltd. Normally breach of a contract occurs where one of the parties to the agreement fails to comply, either completely or satisfactorily, with their obligations under it. However, such a definition does not appear to apply in this case as the time has not yet come when Arti has to produce the text. He has merely indicated that he has no intention of doing so. This is an example of the operation of the doctrine of anticipatory breach.
This arises precisely where one party, prior to the actual due date of performance, demonstrates an intention not to perform. their contractual obligations. The intention not to fulfil the contract can be either express or implied.
Express anticipatory breach occurs where a party actually states that they will not perform. their contractual obligations (Hochster v De La Tour (1853)). Implied anticipatory breach occurs where a party carries out some act which makes performance impossible
Omnium Enterprises v Sutherland (1919)).
When anticipatory breach takes place the innocent party can sue for damages immediately on receipt of the notification of the other party’s intention to repudiate the contract, without waiting for the actual contractual date of performance as in Hochster v De La Tour. Alternatively, they can wait until the actual time for performance before taking action. In the latter instance, they are entitled to make preparations for performance, and claim the agreed contract price (White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor (1961)).
It would appear that Arti’s action is clearly an instance of express anticipatory breach and that Bee Ltd has the right either to accept the repudiation immediately or affirm the contract and take action against Arti at the time for performance (Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (1996)). In any event Arti is bound to complete his contractual promise or suffer the consequences of his breach of contract.
Remedies for breach of contract

(i) Specific performance It will sometimes suit a party to break their contractual obligations, even if they have to pay damages. In such circumstances the court can make an order for specific performance to require the party in breach to complete their part of the contract. However, as specific performance is not available in respect of contracts of employment or personal service Arti cannot be legally required to write the book for Bee Ltd (Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association (1893)). This means that the only remedy against Arti lies in the award of damages.
(ii) Damages A breach of contract will result in the innocent party being able to sue for damages.
Bee Ltd, therefore, can sue Bob for damages, but the important issue relates to the extent of such damages.
The estimation of what damages are to be paid by a party in breach of contract can be divided into two parts: remoteness and measure.
Remoteness of damage
The rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1845) states that damages will only be awarded in respect of losses which arise naturally, or which both parties may reasonably be supposed to have contemplated when the contract was made, as a probable result of its breach.

The effect of the first part of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale is that the party in breach is deemed to expect the normal consequences of the breach, whether they actually expected them or not. Under the second part of the rule, however, the party in breach can only be held liable for abnormal consequences where they have actual knowledge that the abnormal consequences might follow (Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newham Industries Ltd (1949)).

Measure of damages
Damages in contract are intended to compensate an injured party for any financial loss sustained as a consequence of another party’s breach. The object is not to punish the party in breach, so the amount of damages awarded can never be greater than the actual loss suffered. The aim is to put the injured party in the same position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. In order to achieve this end the claimant is placed under a duty to mitigate losses. This means that the injured party has to take all reasonable steps to minimise their loss (Payzu v Saunders (1919)). Although such a duty did not appear to apply in relation to anticipatory breach as decided in White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor (1961)(above).
Applying these rules to the fact situation in the problem it is evident that as Arti has effected an anticipatory breach of his contract with Bee Ltd he will be liable to them for damages suffered as a consequence, if indeed they suffer damage as a result of his breach. As Bee Ltd will be under a duty to mitigate their losses, they will have to commit their best endeavours to find someone else to produce the required text on time. If they can do so at no further cost then they would suffer no loss, but any additional costs in producing the text will have to be borne by Arti.
However, if Bee Ltd is unable to produce the required text on time the situation becomes more complicated.
(i) As regards the profits from the contract to supply the accountancy body with all its text, the issue would be as to whether this was normal profit or amounted to an unexpected gain, as it was not part of Bee Ltd’s normal market when the contract was signed. If Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newham Industries Ltd were to be applied it is unlikely that Bee Ltd would be able to claim that loss of profit from Arti. However, it is equally plausible that the contract was an ordinary commercial one and that Arti would have to recompense Bee Ltd for any losses suffered from its failure to complete contractual performance.
(ii) As for the extensive preliminary expenses Arti would certainly be liable for them, as long as they were in the ordinary course of Bee Ltd’s business and were not excessive (Anglia Television v Reed (1972)).

正确答案：
(a) To: Susan Grant
From:
Strategic strengths and weaknesses in Marlow Fashion Group
In carrying out a strategic strengths and weaknesses analysis one becomes aware that what were formerly strengths often
become weaknesses as the competitive environment changes over time. Strengths and weaknesses analysis is focused on
the internal side of the business and is usually linked to an external appraisal of the external opportunities and threats facing
the company. Marlow Fashion Group is clearly at a crisis point in its company life and needs a strategic turnaround in order
to survive. The business model that has served them so well is no longer appropriate to the fashion world in which they are
now competing. Rodney and Betty Marlow have built a highly vertically integrated model, which gave them considerable
control over the growth and development of the company. In terms of the value chain the relationship they built up with
suppliers was mutually supportive and clearly facilitated the global expansion of the group. Control was even tighter over the
design, manufacturing and retailing of the company’s products. Marlow Fashions had successfully developed a niche market
for its products based around traditional English values. This enabled it to expand successfully and develop a worldwide
reputation for design excellence and quality.
Unfortunately, its competitive environment has changed considerably, becoming increasingly competitive and hostile. The
economics of clothing manufacturing has changed, with most clothing retailers choosing to outsource the manufacture of their
clothes. Women’s tastes in clothing have also changed and there is no longer the market for the clothes Marlow Fashion sells.
The tight control exercised by the founders has prevented recognition of these changes. Marlow Fashion has continued to
pursue outdated designs and expensive manufacturing processes that had served it well in the past. There has been some
recognition of the strategic nature of the problems as indicated by the succession of CEOs since 2000 given the task of
preventing the fall in sales and cutting costs. Unfortunately, the changes in its environment have led to some uncertainty as
to whether Marlow Fashion is a brand, a manufacturer, a retailer or an integrated fashion company.
Overall, Marlow Fashion, from being in a strategically sound position, now requires a swift strategic turnaround. Its products
and markets have changed; the relationships it has with key stakeholders are no longer strengths and its value chain andsystem no longer deliver distinctive value to its customers.
Yours,