This document discusses the liabilities and rights of partners in a partnership firm. It covers the legal aspects, including the agency relationship, personal liability, and the duty to act in the best interest of the company. The document also provides examples and references to relevant cases.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW0 Business Law Assignment Date : 05-05-2019
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Problem Solving Question2 Question 1 Issue The issue of the case is to check and determine - (a) Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd has any right to sue David as he breachedrestraint of trade clause. (b) Standard Bank has any right to sue David to recover $100000 Law A corporation is an artificial person and cannot perform the actions as a natural person. Some people are associated with a corporation that includes promotes and board of directors. Promoters are people who bring a company into existence. Directors and officers on the different side are people who manage and control the affairs of the company. Nevertheless, the same has a separate legal identity from such people. It was held in the case ofSalomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 that a corporation has a separate identity in the eyes of law and therefore they cannot be considered as the same person even in those cases where the director has a substantial interest in the company. In this case, the person named Salomon incorporated a company and transferred his assets of his current business to a new company. In return, to these assets, the company paid him with debentures of the company. Here this is to mention that the whole ownership of the company was in the hand of Salomon and his family members (Trans-lex.org, 2019). When the company went into liquidation then Salomon asked his claim from the company above before other creditors. In the decision of this case, the court held that regardless of the ownership of the company, Salomon was a different person from his
Problem Solving Question3 company. Because of the separate legal identity of the company, Salomon had the right as a debenture holder (Pathak, 2013). It means in general people associated with the company i.e. directors and officer of the company cannot be held liable for the acts done by the company. A company may develop the contract in its name and can sue other parties; other parties can sue a company as well. Nevertheless, this is to state that there are some situations where the associated people i.e. promoters, officers and directors can held personally liable. This generally happens in those cases where such people misuse their separate position in the company.Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne[1933] Ch 935 is the case where court pierced the corporate veil and made the promoter of the company liable as he misused the separate legal personality feature of the company. In this case,an employee of the plaintiff was restricted to be engaged in a similar kind of business after resigning from the plaintiff’s organization. Later on, the subjective employee, incorporate a company, which was engaged in the same business as of plaintiff. The court in its decision given that a company cannot be formed to escape personal obligation and held the employee liable for the breach of trade clause. Application In the presented case, David received two letters and asked advice in relations to his liability. Starting from the letter received from Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd, this is to state that David will be considered as a promoter of the company as he was the only person who took an active part in the formation and management of the company. David was restricted to be engaged in a similar kind of business and yet he incorporated a company named Hair Glo, which was carrying similar kind of activities as David’s earlier employer. Although David was not appointed as director of the company yet applying the principle ofGilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne,he seems to
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Problem Solving Question4 be held liable. He breached the restraint of trade clause imposed by his earlier employer Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd. The court may pierce the corporate veil as David misused the separate legal entity feature to avoid his personal liability and therefore David will be held liable towards Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd. In another case, Monica signed a loan agreement on behalf of the company. As the company is a separate legal personality from its directors and promoters, the bank cannot held David or Monica personally liable for the debt of$ 100 000. Bank has right in against the company in this case. However, the court may lift the corporate veil while determining the liability of David. As decided in the above part, the company was formed to avoid personal liability of David and therefore court may held David for the debt of the same Conclusion Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd has the right to sue David for breach of restraint of trade clause and he will be held personally liable. Further, in case of standard bank, bank can sue the company and not David directly, but David seems to be personally liable as the court may lift the corporate veil.
Problem Solving Question5 Question 2 Issue What are the liabilities and rights of partners in all the three circumstances? Law Partners of partnership firm have an agency relationship with each other and with firm too. They act for them and for other partners. Here to mention that similar to a company, partnership structure do not provide separate legal personality feature and therefore partners of the firm may be held personally liable for the conduct of firm as well as for the conduct of others towards third parties. A partnership agreement is a document that defined the rights and obligations of each partner. Every state of Australia carries its own separate legislation that deals with the matter of partnership. In New South Wales,Partnership Act 1892(NSW) is the lead partnership act. According to the provisions of section 24(5) of the act, it is assumed that every partner of the firm is equally liable and entitled to take part in the affairs of the company (Legislation.nsw.gov.au, 2019). Further partnership agreement is a document developed between partners and therefore an outsider cannot check the authority level of a partner. In such circumstances, the law is the subjective act protects the rights of an innocent third party. As per subsection 1 of section 5 of the respective act, a third party can sue firm as well as to other partners for the conduct of partner that he/she has done outside of his/her authority (Classic.Austlii.Edu.Au, 2019). Because that party cannot know the level of granted authority and transact believing that the partner acted within the limit of expressed authority. However, for
Problem Solving Question6 the application of this section, such transaction must be related to the normal course of business and the third party must not know that the partner is acting outside of authority. Further, it was given in the case ofBentley v Craven(1853) 52 ER 29, that partners have a trustworthy relationship and therefore they need to perform certain duties to each other. Because of this relationship, it becomes a liability to each partner to act in the best interest of the company and not to make secret profits. Application As per the mutual agreement developed among partners, they had the right to be entered into an agreement with the parties for the value of $10000 or less. Two partners of the firm Mary and Anny went abroad and two other named Sarah, and Jane left in Sydney to look after the partnership firm incorporated by them. Jane bought printer papers paying consideration of $2000, whereas the actual price was $1200. Here she earned secret profits of $800. She had a trustworthy relationship with other partners and therefore it was her duty to not to earn such profit or to disclose the same to other partners. Applying the case ofBirtchnell v Equity Trustee, Executors & Agency Co Ltd, Jane is liable to return $800 to the firm. She also did one more transaction where she purchased a medical instrument for $13000. As mentioned above she could make a transaction up to $10000 only. Nevertheless, this is to state that applying the provisions of section 5 (1), all the partners were presumed to have a level of authority to do act on behalf of the firm. The third party had no knowledge of true situation and transaction was related to the ordinary nature of the business, therefore the third party may sue the firm as well as to other partners.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Problem Solving Question7 At last, the third transaction was done by Sarah, partner of the firm and she ordered a driving course from uber. Again the third party had no knowledge of actual authority granted to Sarah. In addition to this the same cannot think that Sarah would have implied authoruty as the transation was not related to ordinary business. Thereforeneither firm nor other partners can be held liable for this. Conclusion In a conclusive way, this is to say that Jane is liable to pay $8000 to the firm. In case of other transaction, Jane purchased equipment for office purpose, therefore cannot be held personally liable. At last Sarah will be personally liable for the purchase of driving course.
Problem Solving Question8 References Bentley v Craven(1853) 52 ER 29 Classic.Austlii.Edu.Au.(2019).PartnershipAct1892-Sect5.RetrievedFrom: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pa1892154/s5.html Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne[1933] Ch 935 Legislation.nsw.gov.au.(2019).PartnershipAct1892No12.RetrievedFrom: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/f9dfc85e-8f91-e79f-99e5-8042677519f3/1892- 12.pdf Partnership Act 1892(NSW) Pathak, A. (2013).Legal Aspects of Business.India:Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 Trans-lex.org.(2019).Salomonv.Salomon&CoLtd[1897]AC22.RetrievedFrom: https://www.trans-lex.org/310810/_/salomon-v-salomon-co-ltd-%5B1897%5D-ac-22/