Just an observation (since I feel the need to rant) Here the examiners commented that this was poorly answered because many assumed that the member was misled and concentrated their discussion on compensating the member. They also refer to part iii, where they said "Most candidates assumed that the member had been misled so lost marks by not considering the other side of the case." These are fairly valid points BUT they go ahead and make this very mistake in (iv) by not considering the other side, ie compensation if the member was misled. Granted they focused on more preliminary actions (albeit these are partly repeating part(iii) but that's another discussion in itself) but they could have at least considered to add a single point on what to do if the members were misled. Acted says that this highlights the importance of not making sweeping assumptions. Sadly, this is not because we should be open minded and consider all possibilities. Instead, it appears we need to cover a wide range of points in the hope that some are included in the marking schedule.
