CIMA Exam CIMAPRA17-BA4-1 Topic 4 Question 110 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIMA's CIMAPRA17-BA4-1 exam

Question #: 110
Topic #: 4

Tee Ltd has contracted to use Vee Ltd's "Grand Hotel" for a business conference. Which of the following would not be regarded as a valid excuse for Vee Ltd for the unavailability of the hotel on the agreed date?

(i) The hotel was closed due to flood damage.

(ii) The hotel was double booked.

(iii) The hotel manager had arranged to have the hotel redecorated; the decorators had failed to complete the work by the agreed date.

A(i) only

B(iii) only

C(ii) and (iii) only

D(i), (ii) and (iii)

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Vilma at Apr 04, 2025, 06:25 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIMAPRA17-BA4-1 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Valentin

25 days ago

If the hotel was underwater, I'd say that's a pretty valid excuse. Unless they had, you know, boats or something. Just sayin'.

upvoted 0 times

Peggy

3 days ago

B) (iii) only

upvoted 0 times

...

Bernardo

9 days ago

A) (i) only

upvoted 0 times

...

Krystal

1 months ago

Hmm, the correct answer would be (ii) and (iii) only. The hotel being closed due to flood damage is a legit reason, but the other two are just excuses for poor planning.

upvoted 0 times

Carissa

9 days ago

Yes, but double booking and failure to complete redecoration on time are not acceptable reasons.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elouise

20 days ago

I agree, the hotel being closed due to flood damage is a valid excuse.

upvoted 0 times

...

Roslyn

2 months ago

The hotel manager arranging for a redecoration and the decorators failing to complete the work on time? That's a lame excuse if I ever heard one. Sounds like they dropped the ball big time.

upvoted 0 times