Tutorial Letter No 2

TUTORIAL LETTER NO 2/2000 The second assignment in most cases left much to be desired. Again many candidates did not read the question and drew up the complete account and not just two sections. Also it was obvious that some of you copied from fellow students as the same way that the account was set out and the same errors were made. You are only fooling yourself by this practice, as you will not be able to copy from your neighbour in the exams. The following errors etc appeared in many answers. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Unnecessary details that were not called for were given. Although I did not take off marks, this will waste time in the exams. Facts were assumed that were not consistent with the problem by stating for example that the surviving spouse did not insist on collation. If collation is insisted on ALL who are entitled to must share. Most overlooked that Joseph must collate, not only that which he received, but also that which his father received. Although most gave the survivor 1/2 of the amount collated, the awards of the collated amount to the others were incorrect. The descendants share the amount collated pro-rata in the proportion that they inherit under the will i.e. the sons each share 2/10th of the amount collated and Joseph 1/10th. Remember the advice that was given in class " if the distribution to the heirs amounts to an odd amount and not a nice round figure, the distribution is most likely incorrect" although calculators will be allowed in the exams, I try to use amounts that can be easily calculated without the need for calculators.

T.TAYLOR.