INTRODUCTION Business entities are structured in a variety of legal forms, including corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies within others(Heffron And et.al., 2018). Moreover, Business associations are formed as well as governed largely under state law and this guide therefore focuses primarily on state law resources. This report is based on two case study of Michelle and tim as well as another one is Gerard and Sylvia. Both will going to discuss about Corporate act 2001 as well as their will also resolve on the basis of respective act. QUESTION 1 Issue -Given case study is of Michelle and Tim who are passionate towards motorbikes. They owned an organisation named as Motorbikes Pvt Ltd. In this Michelle is the director and Tim is company secretary(Swanson and Frederick, 2016). They purchase and sell motorbikes as well as repair them. John is the person who want to sell bike so he approach Tim and he agree to purchase for $5,000. thus, Michelle and Tim both sign contract for buying motorbike but two days later, Michelle think they are paying much amount to John and want to come out of the contract. Although, in this case major issue is related to breaching of contract because Michelle feel that they are paying high amount for motorbike. Thus, by implementing Corporate act 2001 contract case between John, Michelle and Tim will be solve. Rule -Corporate Act 2001 is an act of the commonwealth of Australia that set out laws and regulation for business entities. Respective act mainly deals with companies but also with other entities like partnerships as well as other managed investment schemes. The act is primary basis of Australian corporations law. Apart from this there are some general duties of director given under Corporate Act 2001 in relation to business judgement (General Duties of Directors - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth),2019). Are as follows: Have to take decision in good faith as well as for proper purpose. Should not involve personal material in the subject matter of decision process. Rationallyacceptthatthejudgementisinthebestinterestsofthecorporation (Gottschalk, 2018). Informthemselvesaboutthesubjectmatterofthejudgementtotheextentthey reasonably believe to be appropriate. 1
Analysis -Thus, according to the Corporation act 2001 Motorbike Pvt Ltd is bound by the contract made by Tim and Michelle(Allen and Kraakman, 2016). Breaching of contract is an illegal activity and Michelle as an director of Motorbikes Pvt Ltd. Is liable for bounding of contract. If Michelle breach contract then John will sue him and court can impose heavy fines in relation to breaching of the Corporation Act 2001 as well as have the ability to send officeholder i.e.,MichelleandTimtoprison.BecausecorporateregulatorsofAustraliainvestigate organisations as well as directors for any potential corporate crimes like breach of contract. Conclusion -From the entire discussion it has been concluded that, Michelle is bound for the contract and they have to purchase bike within the amount fix in advance(Callison, 2015). If contract will not completed by the company then John can Sue Michelle and Tim both in case of breaching of contract as well as heavy fine will be impose by court. For instance, X and Y are two person who are passionate about cars so they open their organisation cars Pvt. Ltd.. one day G is the person who come to Y and wish them to sell their car for $ 10,000 and he get agree. As well as contract of this made by X and Y but after few days X think that they are paying high amount for cars and want to get out of the contract. But as per the Corporate Act 2001, X and Y cannot come out of the contract because it is their legal duty to fulfil it and purchase car from G on the agreed amount. Thus, in the case of Michelle he have to purchase motorbikes from John as per the legal contract make by them because breaching of contract is illegal activity for which John and sue both of them in the court. QUESTION 2 Issue -Gerard and Sylvia are the two person who love cakes and they recently decided to purchase cake shop from George. They both finally register an organisation which is named as “cakes Pvt Ltd” with Australian Securities and Investment commission(Kapottos and Youngner, 2015). Then, after get registered Gerard is listed as an director of respective cake company and Sylvia is the company Secretary. On the day of signing contract in relation to purchasing of Cake shop from George, Gerard sign contract with stamp of Cake Pvt Ltd as an witness as well as another witness is Sylvia. After few day of contract, he should not have to sold their cake shop now he want it back. Thus, major issue in the case is that George want to take cake shop back from Gerard and Sylvia after selling legally to them. Rule -Corporation Act 2001 refers to an act of Commonwealth of Australia that sets out laws dealing with organisations at both interstate and federal level. This law mainly deals with 2
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
those business entities which are deal in partnership as well as managed investment schemes. Therefore, it regulates matters of such companies which includes formation and company's operation, takeovers and fundraising etc. As per this law, private organisations which have not more than 50 shareholders are not able to attract public investors(Merry, Davis and Kingsbury, 2015). While public companies through offeringshares can raise their capital as well as there is no restriction for them on number of shareholders. Therefore, public organisations are considered to be more stringent disclosure than proprietary companies and reporting requirements as per the Corporations Act 2001. It generally includes four type of companies that are- Public no liability company;Unlimitedcompanywithsharecapital;Organisationslimitedbyshare;Public enterprises that limited by guarantee. Analysis -According to Corporate Act 2001, George is bound for the contact and he cannot take shop back from Gerard and Sylvia. Because an individual who has sell their property to other are no more owner of it(Reardon, 2015). Thus, George now cannot take any decision for Cake Pvt Ltd as well as not able to take back shop fromGerard and Sylvia without their permission. For example X is owner of a bakery shop, G and H are two person who have interest in Baking they want to purchase shop from X. After some discussion about it X get agree to sell his shop to them. By going through entire legal process ownership of shop has been transfer to G and H. after some days X think that decision of selling Bakery shop was not correct and he want to take that again. But according to corporate act 2001, X is no more owner of the Bakery shop and cannot take any decision in relation to it. Conclusion –From above discussion it has been concluded that, in relation to the respective case of George, he cannot take shop from Gerard and Sylvia without their permission because legally Cake Pvt Ltd is their now(Baskerville and Baskerville, 2018). As well as George cannot pressurise to them for selling their shop according to the legal bodies of Australia. CONCLUSION From the above discussion of case study first of Tim and Michelle it has been identified that, contract between John and Motorbikes Pvt Ltd will not breach because if it happen then John case sue both of them. Moreover, for breaching of Corporation law court can charge fine as well as also haveability to send officeholder i.e., Michelle and Tim to prison. Thus, Tim and Michelle are bounded for the made by them of purchasing bike.Apart from this, on the basis of 3
case study second it has been concluded that George is bound for the contract done by him with Gerard and Sylvia. Because he sell his shop by doing proper contract with this as well as legal formalities relates to that are also done due to which he cannot take shop back without permission of George. According to corporate Act 2001, an individual is no more owner of any property after selling it to other. . 4
REFRENCES Books and Journal Heffron, R.J. And et.al., 2018. A treatise for energy law.The Journal of World Energy Law & Business,11(1), pp.34-48. Allen, W. T. and Kraakman, R., 2016.Commentaries and cases on the law of business organization. Wolters Kluwer law & business. Kapottos,M.andYoungner,S.,2015.TheTexasadvanceddirectivelaw:Unfinished business.The American Journal of Bioethics.15(8). pp.34-38. Reardon, K. A., 2015. Computerized writing assessment technology: Business law students weighinonitsuseinthecollegeclassroomfordevelopingworkplace-ready writing.Computers and Composition,38, pp.32-44. Baskerville, D. and Baskerville, T., 2018.Music business handbook and career guide. Sage Publications. Callison, J. W., 2015. Seeking an Angle of Repose in US Business Organization Law: Fiduciary Duty Themes and Observations.U. Pitt. L. Rev.,77, p.441. Gottschalk, P., 2018. The Investigation Business. InInvestigating White-Collar Crime(pp. 213- 237). Springer, Cham. Swanson,D.L.andFrederick,W.C.,2016.Denialandleadershipinbusinessethics education.Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders, pp.222-240. Merry, S. E., Davis, K. E. and Kingsbury, B. eds., 2015.The quiet power of indicators: measuring governance, corruption, and rule of law. Cambridge University Press. Online GeneralDutiesofDirectors-CorporationsAct2001(Cth),2019.[Online].Available Through:<https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch05s04s02.php> 5