Commercial Law vs Corporate Law

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW1
Part A
Issue
The issue to be discussed in the present scenario is whether the museum can claim any
kind of civil action against the man in order to recover the money paid by him.
Rule
If any individual makes any kind of fraudulent misrepresentation, misleads someone, or
engages in any kind of fraudulent activity then the individual is said to have committed fraud.
Under the Fraud Act 2006, it has been established that any act, which would be untrue or
misleading, would be done in order to gain some kind of advantage or to cause harm or injury to
another individual would be considered as fraud.
Under section, 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 any individual through any deception or
dishonesty acquires any property, which is belonging to others or tries to gain some kind of a
financial advantage or cause any kind of financial disadvantage, would be guilty of committing
the offence of fraud. A person or an individual would be considered to be convicted of the
offence if such offence includes all or any part of some kind of general deficiency relating to
money or any other property which would be considered to be deficient and such would be made
up of any number relating to particular sums of money or any other items relating to any other
property which were considered to be acquired or obtained through out a period of time or a
specific duration of time. The conviction of such offence is considered to be an alternative or a
substitute verdict to a charge for any kind of offence involving larceny and for such conviction of
the offence is considered to be an alternative or substitute verdict for the offence of fraud. The
maximum penalty for fraudulent activities would be considered to be imprisonment for ten years.

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW2
In contractual agreements, misrepresentation is considered to be the false information
which is given to a party before any kind of contract being formed or created which encourages
the parties to form a contract. If any individual enters into any kind of contract dependent on any
misrepresentation and suffers any kind of loss due to such then the party who suffered the loss
has the authority to claim for damages under the contract. It can be understood from the case of
Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927] AC 177. Misrepresentation is considered to be innocent, when any
party unknowingly or unintentionally provides with false information if the party believes that
the information is considered to be true and the party has no intention to deceive or betray the
other party to the contract. It can be understood from the case of Esso Petroleum v. Mardon
[1976] QB 801. If there has been any kind of misrepresentation of facts done with the intention
of deceiving or betraying the other party then such would constitute as an offence. It can be
understood from the case of Google Inc v ACCC High Court of Australia [2013] HCA 1. This
particular case was considered to deal with the fact that whether Google had been involved with
misleading or any deceptive conduct.
Extradition is considered to be a formal surrender by one of the states on the request of
the other state for an individual who is considered to be accused of some crime which has been
committed within the jurisdiction of the requesting state. The international treaties are not
considered to have a direct effect until and unless the Australian law recognizes it under that of
the Extradition Act 1988.
Application
In this particular scenario, Lance Lincoln is considered to be the curator of the museum
named Australian Museum of Antiquities. Trevor Hunt had been known to Lance as a treasure
hunter who had been specializing in finding various kinds of antiquities for the museums. Hunt

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW3
had shown Lincoln collections of coins along with pieces of crockery which he had stated came
from the Portuguese wreck Gaivota which had been located in the international waters off the
northern wester Australian coast. The coins along with the crockery were considered to be
thoroughly evaluated and examined and after such they had paid Hunt with 200,000 dollars to
fund an expedition which would help in building a special Gaivota display in a wing of the
museum. The main went missing subsequently and after conducting a search, it was assumed that
it had died with the other members who were a part of the expedition. After a while it was
understood that the coins along with the crockery were considered to be clever fakes and the
actual ones had been found in the records of Portugal. Apart from such the Trevor Hunt was
considered to be a conman and the real Trevor Hunt had been identified. Therefore, he had been
arrested in England and was considered to be extradited to Australia. According to the above
rule, which has been mentioned, that in contractual agreements misrepresentation or deception
are considered to be an offence and if such has been committed then the whole contractual
agreement would end or be terminated. Trevor Hunt in this particular scenario had committed the
offence of fraud or misrepresentation under the contractual terms which means that he
knowingly sold the coins along with the crockery to the curator of the museum even though such
were fakes and not the originals. This was done to gain some personal monetary advantage and
therefore, this act of deception or misrepresentation can be understood as a fraudulent activity.
Therefore, he is liable to pay for damages for such an offence or an act. As it can be understood
from the case of Bisset v. Wilkinson. On the other hand, Trevor Hunt is considered to be
extradited to Australia as it has been mentioned in the above rule that the international treaties
would not have any kind of direct effect if such has not been recognized or ratified by the
Australian law. Therefore, if it has been then he would be extradited to Australia under the