logo

Question 1 (a) Sunshine Scooter Art Pty Limited

   

Added on  2019-11-25

6 Pages2025 Words434 Views
Question 1 (a)Sunshine Scooter Art Pty Limited is bound by the contract entered to with Computers Supplies Pty Limited as executed on its behalf by Bob.A company just like a natural person is an entity capable of entering into contracts in its own name1. Being a juristic person, a company enters into such contracts by itself using its common seal2 or through an authorized agent3. The Company is further bound by its constitution and or any binding resolutions it has passed as far as execution of contracts are concerned.Pursuant to s. 126 of the Incorporation Act, a Company may authorize an agent to act on its behalf. Such an agent may do so as an individual. Where such an agent is a director of that company then he or she may execute that agreement as a sole agent of the Company. S. 127 of the Incorporation Act provides for execution of a company by itself with or without a seal. An execution where the Company has more than one director, then such document and or contract can only be enforceable if executed by two directors or a director and the Company Secretary.The Constitution of the Company further sets out its regulations as far as execution of contracts is concerned4. Such regulations guide not only the shareholders but equally the directors on theirconducts as the mind and the managers of the Company. An action by directors against the Constitution of the Company invalidates such an action. It is the duty of the directors to act within the powers given in line with the Articles of Association of that Company.In Punt v Symons& Co Ltd (1903) 2 Ch 506, the court I emphasizing the duty of the directors to act within the law and the Constitution of the Company , the court held that the directors could not work outside the provisions of the Articles of Association in a bid to realize a position not provided for by the Articles. It is on this ground that the provision of SSA Pty Limited Constitution has to be upheld as far as execution of the agreement was concerned.1 The Incorporation Act 2001, s. 1242 The Incorporation Act 2001, s. 1273 The Incorporation Act 2001, s. 1264Part 19 - How To Execute Legal Documents(2017) Defence.gov.au <http://www.defence.gov.au/estatemanagement/support/SuiteContracts/Manual/Part_19_-_How_to_execute_legal_documents.htm>.

The Constitution SSA Pty Limited provides that a contract of $ 10,000 can only be binding if executed by two directors and if a board resolution to such a contract being entered to is passed. Interpreted otherwise a contract of less than $ 10,000 may be entered into without a board resolution and with less than two directors. This may also mean that the Company’s Constitutionseemed to refer to contracts for less than $ 10,000 to be executed pursuant to s. 126 of the Corporation Act. On this basis, Bob acted as an agent of the Company when signing the Contractand hence the Company is bound by the Contract and meant to settle the invoice of $8,000 for the supply of the Computers.Question 1(b)Sunshine Scooter Art Pty Limited is not bound by the agreement with Plastica Pty Limited entered on its behalf by Bob.The Company, Sunshine Scooter Art Pty Limited by virtue of s. 126 and 127 of the IncorporationAct 2001, may enter into a contract through an authorized agent or by itself respectively. A director may enter into a contract as an agent of the Company. This needs to however be clearly stated. Where a Company enters into a contract by virtue of s. 127, it must then have two of its directors sign the contract and or a director and the Company secretary. Affixing of the seal is optional. A contract signed by a sole director is therefore unenforceable. In the case of Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd v Paley Properties Pty Ltd[2014] SASCFC 103, the court held that a contract signed by a sole director where in essence the Company had two directors to be unenforceable in law. In this case a director executed a contract of for sale of a property of $ 1.5 Million and struck out the box designating a sole director. It was on this groundthat the court opined that the director did not intend to be bound by s. 126 rather be bound by s. 127. Being bound by s. 127, he did not act as an agent rather he acted as a sole director where the Company was acting on its behalf. The Contract was thus held to be non-binding.The Company’s Constitution, which sets out the regulations on execution of Company providesthat an agreement of more than $ 10,000 can only be binding where there has been a resolution authenticating such an agreement and the same signed by 2 directors. This was however not the position in the Contract between Bob and Plastica Pty Limited. Bob signed the agreement as a sole director thereby making the contract unenforceable and non-binding on SSA Pty Limited.

Question 2Jack, Alice and Francis are in breach of some of the duties imposed to them by the Incorporation Act 2001 and the Common Law. This is clearly seen by the wrong judgment of having SuperdryStores Limited guarantee the debts of the Superdry Holdings Limited and Superdry Manufacturing Limited. It must be taken to account that these move by the 3 directors aforementioned was a selfish move basically aimed at protecting their interests in the Holdings and Manufacturing Limited, where they hold considerable share interests. The actions of such directors are therefore not in the best interest of the Company and are actionable before a common court and further as a contravention of the statutory duties of directors to the company.Principally, directors of a Company who are also referred to as the government of the Company have Statutory and common law and or equitable duties to the Company in carrying out of their functions. The Statutory duties of the directors have been set out in s. 180- 183 of the Incorporation Act. These statutory duties have been summarized as the duty of Care and diligence; the duty to act in good faith; the duty to put their position to proper use and the duty tomake good use of the information gained in their span of being directors5. Any failure to perform such duties calls for legal penalties or criminal charges against the directors that contravene the sections setting out those duties.The duty of care and diligence calls on directors while making any business decision and or judgment to for the proper purpose, with no material person interest, being certain that the decision is commercially viable to the Company and that it is to the best interest of the Company.This is what has been referred to as the ‘Business Judgment rule’. In his writing, in agreement with the disclaimer in s. 180 of the Incorporation Act, Professor Braxt6 appreciates that this rule only applies to the duty of care and diligence and not the other statutory duties. We opine that the 3 directors in passing the resolution to have Superdry Stores Limited Guarantee to the debts of the two companies was a breach of this duty as it was not made to the best interest of the Stores Limited rather it was for the interest of the two other companies in which the directors are the major shareholders. It must be noted that the Stores Limited had engaged in the sale of other 5 The Incorporation Act, 2001 s. 180- s. 1836 R Baxt,Duties And Responsibilities Of Directors And Officers(Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2016).

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Paper on Contractual Capacity of Organization
|10
|2526
|85

Business Law Assignment - Corporation Act 2001
|12
|2547
|36

TMA 01 - Assignment on Contract Law
|10
|2723
|57

Contracts with Plastica Pvt. Ltd: 5 Brief Case Study: 5 Legal Provisions of Misrepresentation
|11
|2427
|264

Legal Regulation of Business Structures Hypothetical Assignment
|8
|2358
|53

Common Law Case Study Contracts
|11
|2709
|36