BUSINESS LAW 2
purchase of the car has been considered as the ordinary course of business. It means that
other partners will be liable to pay debts of the car. Every partner has unlimited liability and
to pay the debts individually on the action of the other partners as established in the case
Polkinghorne v Holland. As instructed Lance has not acted according to the terms of the
contract, therefore other partners can take the action against lance for the breach of fiduciary
duties as established in the case United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be said that the partners will be liable to pay the debts of the car for the contract
that is held between the lance and Lynton. However, other partners have the right to file a
suit against Lance to recover the extra money that has been spent on purchase of car for the
breach of the fiduciary duties.
Case Study 2
Issue
Do the customers have the right to claim the remedies against the false advertisement?
Does the contract have the binding effect on the Saqlaim?
Legal principles (Rule)
In Australia, it is required while doing the business have to comply with guidelines that have
been issued by the Australia Consume Law in the Schedule 2 of Competition and Consumer
Act 2010 (CCA) is enacted by the parliament of Australia. The Act initiates various
prohibitions that are false and misleading advertisements. It has been stated that liability will
occur on the organisation according to the section 29 for issuing the false advertisements to
the public in which that have made the deceptive and false remarks. The Act has the objective
to protect the consumers to protect consumers from misleading advertisements and to prevent
organisations from making the false information regarding the product specifications. These
have an adverse effect on the market by attracting customers with the misleading information.
In ACCC v H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited [2018] FCA 360 (19 March 2018) case,
the organisation has been held liable for providing misleading information about the health
benefits of the product. The company has been fined $2.25 million (Law, 2018).
In accordance with the terms of the contract the parties has been bind by the legal terms and
actions has been taken against organisation in the case when contractual duties had been

+13062052269

info@desklib.com