Law Assignment

Business Law
Running Head: Law Assignment
0
Student’s Name
5 / 5 / 2 0 1 9

Law Assignment 1
Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................2
Issue 2
Law 2
Application 3
Conclusion 4
Question 2........................................................................................................................................4
Issue 4
Laws 5
Application 6
Conclusion 7
References........................................................................................................................................7

Law Assignment 2
Question 1
Issue
The issue of the case is to check the liability of David with respect to two of the letters,
which he received from Nu shampoo Pty Ltd and standard bank.
Law
Separate Legal Personality Principle: - Company is a legal person in the opinion of the
law. It means the same has all the rights similar to a natural person. A company can conduct its
business activities in its own name and is able to take all the liabilities related to the same.
Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) (CA 2001) is the legislation of Australia that regulated companies in
this nation. Section 119 of the act says that upon registration a company becomes a legal person.
It means it gets a separate status from its members (Austlii.edu.au, 2019). It was held in the case
of Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 that a company may own property in
its own name. Section 124 (1) of CA 2001 list out powers of the company. As per these sections,
third parties have all the rights in against of a company as they have against a natural person and
can sue the company for breach of contract or any other default conducted by the same.
Many of the cases happened in the past where court proved the existence of separate legal
personality of a corporation. One of the leading cases is Salomon v A Salomon, where court
identified the company as a separate personality even the promoter hold the whole shareholding
and had full control on the management of the company. Another similar case is Lee v Lee’s Air
Farming Ltd (1961) AC 12. In this case, a person Mr. Lee owed 99% shares in a company and
was also acting in the capacity of the pilot. He died in an accident while performing his job and
his wife asked insurance claim from the company. In the decision of this case, the court held that