Liability of Busy Bee Florist Shop: A Case Study

Running head: CASE STUDY 0
CORPORATION LAW
MAY 16, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

CASE STUDY 1
To make suggestion toViolet and Sonny in respect of the liability to Friendly Bank in respect of a Busy
Bee Florist Shop, primarily this is essential to assess whether the partnership relations present
between the Busy Bee Florist Shop and Violet, and between Sonny and Busy Bee Florist
Shop. Thiscase study brings forward a query whether the partnership existed in the current situation
between Violet, Mary, Rosy, and Sonny. According to the Partnership Act 1958 (VIC), the profit’s
sharing states the partnership’s applicabilitybetween partners. The exception to the partnership’s
rules explains that the creditors are secured from the rule of partnership if there comprises any of
the necessary factors in the Partnership Act 1958 (VIC).
Further, the partnership can be described as a relation, which prevailed amid people who execute
the business’s functions in common with a purpose of earning the profits. In a famous case of Green
v Beesley (1835), it was held by the court that the contract amongst 2 or more people to be involved
in the partnership possessing the legally binding connection and have essential features of
contractual in a nature. In a current framework, this is obvious that Sonny is considered as the
worker and creditoron behalf of Rose and Mary Busy Bee Florist Shop and Sonny would not be
regarded as a partner.
In a case of Smith v Anderson (1880), the court laid down by his judgement that the member do not
create the legal unit at a period of creating a partnership.An ordinary partnership may be described
as a partnership of some people, which are intended together through agreements amid themselves
to endure the object of entering into the contract with one another. According to the Partnership
Act 1958 (VIC), for creating the valid partnership between the partners, it is required to satisfy the 3
elements. These three elements are below-
 Executing the functions of business
 In common
 With a purpose of generating profits

CASE STUDY 2
In this way, if any element amongst them is not present from a connection is not regarded to be the
partnership. Consequently, Sonny is only the business’s lender and may not be considered as the
partners as Sonny doesn’t know in respect of the debt from a Friendly Bank so Sonny would not be
considered as a partner as per the Partnership Act 1892. Consequently, the case of violet is same as
a case of Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878). In the case of Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878),
it was held by the court that a partner or creditor of a related business is given a right to control a
business. In the addition of this, Violet also has the right of the dormant business partner with a right
to share profits and losses, to assess the corporation’s books and the rights of getting the quarterly
business statement along with the rights of sharing the liabilities of the losses by partner.
Furthermore, Violet would be actually considered as a partner in addition to businesses for being the
lender, however this is obviously stated in a loan’s agreement that Violet being the lender would not
be considered as a business’s partner. However, the loan taken by Mary and Rose for busy bee florist
shop from Sonny and Violet states the debt’s nature, which is owed to them. According to
Partnership Act 1958 (VIC), the declaration may be bought forward by explaining that Sonny is not
considered as the partner. Consequently, Sonny is not able to pay the debt to a Friendly Bank in
respect of the Busy Bee Florist Shop. As well the factors mentioned under the Partnership Act 1958
(VIC) is also misplaced from a matter of Sonny. It was not amounted to execute the business’s
functions in common for a loan rendered to Busy Bee Florist Shop.
In a case of Television Broadcasters Ltd v Ashton’s Nominees Pty Ltd (1979), the court gave its
judgement that joint venture to motivate the trip of the circus did not create the members as the
partner. It was held by the court that even if the members became the joint ventures with a purpose
of generating the profits. The agreement however did not cover the requirements to distribute the
losses and most obviously, the conforming commitments contained the contract, whichwere
considered as the different provisions.Additional evidences if lack of partnership was laid down by
the court in the case of Exparte Coral Investments Pty Ltd [1979] which presented the circumstance