Business Law In Organization Report

the assignment needs to be in a proper way that is issue law application and conclusion and the cassignment has to be done for two persons, so their should be two diffeternt answers for the questions

Running head: LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Question 1
Issue
The primary issue in connection to the given situation is whether the trade union shall be
able to enforce their agreement established with Casino Ltd on the 1st day of the month of July in
the year 2005.
Rule
The case of Bolwell v Redcliffe Homes Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 613 must be regarded as a
pertinent case in connection to the provided scenario. It has been mentioned in this specific case
that a particular contract relating to employment has been defined by the common law as a
private contract that is established in relation to the employee and the employer. It has been
highlighted that when such relation ceases, then the contract relating to employment also gets
concluded or comes to an end. Such opinion had the insinuations and inferences that when the
business was sold by an employer, then the contracts relating to every employee got terminated,
because the employees were not employed by or working for the initial employer any longer. It
has also been stated by the Common law that any employer shall not be obligated to honor or
uphold the previous contracts of an employee relating to employment because any particular
contract relating to employment of any particular employee cannot be conveyed to the next
employer in the absence of consent of that employer.
The case named Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383 must be
regarded as a relevant case in relation to the given situation. It has been mentioned in this case
that any effort for causing a disparity distinctively in connection to the given contract, when no
consent has been forwarded by the other involved party, may give rise to a breach concerning the

2LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
contract. Regarding certain circumstances, a different or alternate clause may corroborate or
authenticate variations in relation to the facet of employment, however, no given clause can
substantiate or endorse any unapproved deduction regarding the wages or salaries relating to the
employees.
As per the Fair work Act of the year 2009, a transfer relating to a business occurs when
the employment concerning the transferring employee gets concluded. Such transfer occurs when
within the time period of three months of such conclusion, the new employer employs that
employee, and the new work of the employee is similar and identical to his previous work. As
per the Act mentioned above, the employers shall not be obligated to notify the employees in
relation to the transfer relating to the business. However, the employers shall be obligated to
provide the employees with the copy relating to ‘Fair Work Information Statement’ either before
or after the employee commence their new job. It has also been specified by the Fair work Act
that if the new employer is regarded as an associated entity concerning the old employer, then
the previous contract relating to employment must be considered and acknowledged by both the
old employer as well as the new employer. It may also be said that if the former contract relating
to employment of the transferring employees are not acknowledged by their employers
(particularly in case of associated companies), then damages may be paid to such transferring
employees.
Application
In the provided scenario, certain employees were transferred from Casino Ltd to Caterers
Ltd. A contract was made between Casino Ltd and the employees in relation to the wages of the
employees. However, after some of the employees were transferred from Casino Ltd to Caterers

3LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Ltd the new employment contract stated less wages than the previous employment, although it
was in conformity to the market value of wages in similar industries.
The case of Bolwell v Redcliffe Homes Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 613 must be applied in
connection to the provided scenario. It has been mentioned in this specific case that a particular
contract relating to employment has been defined by the common law as a private contract that is
established in relation to the employee and the employer. It has been highlighted that when such
relation ceases, then the contract relating to employment also gets concluded or comes to an end.
Such opinion had the insinuations and inferences that when the business was sold by an
employer, then the contracts relating to every employee got terminated, because the employees
were not employed by or working for the initial employer any longer. It has also been stated by
the Common law that any employer shall not be obligated to honor or uphold the previous
contracts of an employee relating to employment because any particular contract relating to
employment of any particular employee cannot be conveyed to the next employer in the absence
of consent of that employer. Hence, in the given scenario, the consent of the transferring
employees were not asked in relation to the transfer or their wages.
Applying the case named Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383, it
may be said that any effort for causing a disparity distinctively in connection to the given
contract, when no consent has been forwarded by the other involved party, may give rise to a
breach concerning the contract. Regarding certain circumstances, a different or alternate clause
may corroborate or authenticate variations in relation to the facet of employment, however, no
given clause can substantiate or endorse any unapproved deduction regarding the wages or
salaries relating to the employees. Hence, the deduction regarding wages of the transferring
employees in the given scenario cannot be justified.

4LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Applying the Fair work Act of the year 2009, it can be said that if the new employer is
regarded as an associated entity concerning the old employer, then the previous contract relating
to employment must be considered and acknowledged by both the old employer as well as the
new employer. It may also be said that if the former contract relating to employment of the
transferring employees are not acknowledged by their employers (particularly in case of
associated companies), then damages may be paid to such transferring employees. Hence, in the
given scenario, the previous contract of the transferring employees must be acknowledged by the
employers of such employees.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that the trade union shall be able to enforce their agreement
established with Casino Ltd on the 1st day of the month of July in the year 2005.

5LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Question 2
Issue
The issue in relation to the provided situation is what may be the kind of business, which
is being conducted by Bush, Obama and Hillary, and whether Obama would be accountable in
relation to contract involving outsiders.
Rule
There are no express laws in relation to joint ventures in the nation of Australia. A
contractual joint venture is considered to be a joint venture that is unincorporated. This kind of
joint venture is grounded on a specific agreement relating to co-operation. A variation and
multiplicity relating to hybrids concerning corporate and contractual joint ventures may be
utilized, contingent on the legal, commercial and taxation necessities regarding the
participants. Limited liability partnership or LLP is considered to be such a hybrid. In LLPs the
accountability regarding the limited partners are restricted if they do not get involved in the daily
operations and functions relating to the business (Al-Emadi 2019).
In this regard, the case of United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157
CLR 1 shall be considered to be a significant case in relation to the provided scenario. In this
case, it was stated that the existence of a fiduciary relation concerning the joint venturers shall be
contingent upon the arrangement that the specific joint venture gives effect to. It shall also be
contingent upon the obligations that the parties in relation to the agreement have decided to
undertake.

6LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
Application
It may be said that there are no express laws in relation to joint ventures in the nation of
Australia. A contractual joint venture is considered to be a joint venture that is unincorporated.
This kind of joint venture is grounded on a specific agreement relating to co-operation. A
variation and multiplicity relating to hybrids concerning corporate and contractual joint ventures
may be utilized, contingent on the legal, commercial and taxation necessities regarding the
participants. Limited liability partnership or LLP is considered to be such a hybrid. In LLPs the
accountability regarding the limited partners are restricted if they do not get involved in the daily
operations and functions relating to the business. Hence, in the provided scenario, Bush, Obama
and Hillary are involved in an unincorporated joint venture, possibly an LLP.
Applying the case of United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR
1, it may be said that the existence of a fiduciary relation concerning the joint venturers shall be
contingent upon the arrangement that the specific joint venture gives effect to. It shall also be
contingent upon the obligations that the parties in relation to the agreement have decided to
undertake.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that the kind of business, which is being conducted by Bush,
Obama and Hillary may be said to be an unincorporated joint venture (possibly LLP), and
Obama cannot be accountable if he does not get involved in the daily operations and functions
relating to the business.

7LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
References
Al-Emadi, T.A., 2019. Joint Venture Agreements in the Qatari Gas Industry: A Theoretical and
an Empirical Analysis. Springer.
Bolwell v Redcliffe Homes Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 613.
Fair work Act, 2009.
Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383.
United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1.