[jeff]

Free Study Planner, Notes, Audio, Flashcards: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/

Free CPA Exam Survival Guide: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-survival-guide/

Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

[Anonymous]

I just finished the topic but i did not memorize them. I may have to go back if needed, but for now I'm moving on.

[OneGiantWarrior]

Can someone clarify this for me? I chose D as my answer but the correct answer was C.

My reasoning: This contract needs to be in writing and signed, at a minimum, by the defendant (Zimmer). Zimmer did sign the contract. I though the one bringing the suit wasn't required to the contract and that's why I threw out C. Second, West violated the licensing requirements which made the contract void.

West, an Indiana real estate broker, misrepresented to Zimmer that West was licensed in Kansas under the Kansas statute that regulates real estate brokers and requires all brokers to be licensed. Zimmer signed a contract agreeing to pay West a 5% commission for selling Zimmer’s home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmer’s home. If West sued Zimmer for nonpayment of commission, Zimmer would be:

A. liable to West only for the value of services rendered.

B. liable to West for the full commission.

C. not liable to West for any amount because West did not sign the contract.

D. not liable to West for any amount because West violated the Kansas licensing requirements.

Am I missing something or is D the correct answer and not C?

Thanks in advance!

[CPAfit]

@onegiant if I remember correctly in order for a contract to be enforceable, it needs to be signed by the violator not the defendant. In this case West needs to sign the contract if Zimmer wants to bring suit against him.

[OneGiantWarrior]

Thanks @zubairs, I see what your saying but it's just really confusing. Had West signed it, Zimmer would still not be liable because West violated the licensing requirements.

[win2bet]

Here's a tough one guys, make sure to read the words VERY carefully…

On March 1, Mirk Corp. wrote to Carr offering to sell Carr its office building for $280,000. The offer stated that it would remain open until July 1. It further stated that acceptance must be by telegram and would be effective only upon receipt. Carr telegrammed its acceptance on June 28 and it was received by Mirk on July 2. Which of the following statements is correct?

A) A contract was formed when Carr telegrammed its acceptance.

B) A contract was formed when Mirk received Carr’s acceptance.

C) No contract was formed because 3 months had elapsed since the offer was made.

D) No contract was formed since the acceptance was received after July 1.

REG 68,87
BEC 85
FAR 75
AUD 64,64, 86!

[CPAfit]

@win2bet D

[win2bet]

@zubairs yup D. nice

REG 68,87
BEC 85
FAR 75
AUD 64,64, 86!

[kenster7773]

Guys – I cannot believe it! I just received my REG score, the one I knew I failed. I scored an 87! An 87! Thank you Jesus! I totally knew I bombed it! Literally, I just blind guessed on 3 of the sims. And the MCQs were awful as well. I had NO clue what I was doing. After the exam, I literally told everyone I knew I failed. This exam is curved out the nose. I looked up my answers and I found out I missed about every question under the sun. This is wild, just wild. I couldn't be happier. This is such a big deal to me. I had put in so many hrs studying for the retake. I hate NASBA for just now releasing our scores. But our new baby is healthy and I passed the CPA exam. Amazing!

AUD - 95 (89 1st time - expired)
BEC - 85 (1st time)
REG - 87 (1st time)
FAR - 82 (1st time)

[pia ach]

Congrats Kenster on both your awesome score and the baby 🙂

Finally done!!! Experience-pending. Ethics- Pending.
Reg 78 / 73/82.
Aud 74/89.
BEC 72 /78.
FAR 74/ 73/ 82.

[pia ach]

Pate Corp. is offering $3 million of its securities solely to accredited investors pursuant to Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933. Under Regulation D, Pate is

Not required to provide any specified information to the accredited investors.

Required to provide the accredited investors with audited financial statements for the two most recent fiscal years.

Permitted to make a general solicitation.

Not permitted to make a general solicitation.

I was so sure that it has to be one of the last two options…it just does not make sense it can be either be permitted or not permitted..

Finally done!!! Experience-pending. Ethics- Pending.
Reg 78 / 73/82.
Aud 74/89.
BEC 72 /78.
FAR 74/ 73/ 82.

[Tax lady]

I passed guys!!!! 82! Wooohoooooo

REG 8/15/14 (73); 11/13/14 (82)-expired 🙁
AUD 5/30/15 (80)
BEC 11/28/15 (75)
FAR 7/30/16

Studying with CPAexcel and Ninja notes/MCQ's/Flashcards

[242126]

Can someone clarify acquisition date for gifted property? Is the acquisition date the date of the giftee when a gain and date giftee received if a loss?

[SomedayCPA2015]

Pia which one is it? D? I'm assuming that is not the case based on your comments though? Yet another item to add to my never-ending list….Ugh!!!

REG - Passed
BEC - Passed
AUD - Passed
FAR - Passed!!!! I have my life back.

[pia ach]

@someday it is the first one..Not required to provide any specified information to the accredited investors.

In the WTB there are conflicting answers to whether general solicitation are allowed or not.I have seen one question where it says it is for 506D, and then it says not allowed for any. I did not get time to read the book, will go back and just stick to what it says there.

Finally done!!! Experience-pending. Ethics- Pending.
Reg 78 / 73/82.
Aud 74/89.
BEC 72 /78.
FAR 74/ 73/ 82.

[Anonymous]

Yep, I still haven't figured that out either pia. Hopefully I don't run into that problem on the tesr.

Tax Lady, congrats! How should I be studying for the sims? Should I even bother looking at the business law sims?

[Author]

Replies