Business Law Case Study | Partnership Act
Added on - 21 Apr 2020
Running head: BUSINESS LAWCase studyName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
1BUSINESS LAWCase study 1Legal issue:The main legal issue regarding the case law is as follows:a)Whether all the partners are bound by the contract agreed there or not.b)Can the partners have any option to take legal actions against the wrongful acts ofLance or not.Legal provisions:The problem of the case is attracting the provision of Partnership Act 1892 (Morse2010). It has been mentioned under section 5 of the said Act that a firm will be liable if anycollaborate in a partnership business performs wrongful work during the business or he hascommitted the same with the collaboration with other partners will be held liable if anydamage sustained by that work. The third party should sustain the damage (Blackett-Ord andHaren 2015).Application:It has been observed that in this case all the partners are bound by the norms of thecontract signed in between them. A particular amount has been stated for purchasing a carand one of the partners Lance has purchased a car from Lynton without maintaining thelimited amount. It is clear that Lance has made a wilful violation to the partnership contractduring his business. Therefore, the other partners have a choice to held Lynton liable for hisact. However, according to the case ofNational Commercial Banking Corporation ofAustralia Ltd v Batty,it can be stated that though only one partner has done the wrongful act,the other partners have also same liability regarding the damage sustained by Lynton. In thatcase, the Australian High Court held that the primary rule of the partnership is that every
2BUSINESS LAWpartner is liable for the wrongful act of others. Lynton can make the other partners held liableaccording to the provision of section 15 of the Partnership Act 1892.In case of a partnership, each partner is enjoying certain rights regarding theirbusiness and one of the rights are fiduciary relationship (Fletcher 2000). The partners are freeto file any case on reimbursement against Lance and can claim damage as Lance had failed toact in good faith.Conclusion:To sum up, it can be said that all the partners are liable for the wrongful act ofLance as per the provision of section 10 and 15 of the Partnership Act 1892 and also can filea suit against Lance.Case study 2Legal issue:After analysing the facts, following issues have been cropped up:a)Whether the consumer can be compensated for moisturizer.b)Whether the norms of the contract are mandatory for Saqlaim or not.Legal rules:The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the provision ofAustralian Consumer Law govern the present facts of the case. According to section 29 of theAct, restrictions are to be imposed on the advertised statements that make false conceptionregarding the goods (Corones 2013). The intention of the statement is to promote the goods ina wrongful way.