LAW6000 - Business and Corporate Law: Case Study Analysis Assignment

This document presents a detailed case study analysis of various scenarios related to Business and Corporate Law. The analysis employs the IRAC method to dissect each case, identifying legal issues, relevant rules, and their application to the facts, culminating in a conclusion or practical advice. The cases cover diverse areas, including contract law (formation, breach, and remedies), business structures, and the responsibilities of company directors and agents. The document explores the legal implications of agreements, including the enforceability of heads of agreements, and the consequences of failing to meet contractual obligations. It further investigates the liabilities of individuals and companies in various situations, such as loan agreements, agency relationships, and product liability. The analysis considers issues of negligence, duty of care, and the potential for compensation in cases of harm or loss. This assignment offers a practical application of legal principles to real-world business situations.

Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW 1
Business and Corporate Law
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliate
Date

2
Question 1 part A
On most occasions, the IRAC has been employed to simplify complicated terminologies,
fact patterns, and legal analysis. To make issues easy to understand context blocks of texts
arranged sequentially as per the legal analysis approach. This is considered helpful for several
reasons, one of which are to avoid confusions and misunderstandings caused by the legal
terminologies and complexities.
Jeff and Tina for formalities have signed the heads on the agreement specifying the terms
of negotiation for the exchange of Jeff's peach brandy business. In the process of preparation for
the formal contract, Tina wants to terminate the legal agreement due to her issues. She is no
longer sure anymore whether she wants to continue with buying the business (Anderson, 2015).
Jeff, on the other hands, feels like Tina wish to breach the contract and want to forward the case
to court if Tina does not change her mind. The reason why Jeff sues Tina if for non-fulfillment
of term 1 of the heads of agreement which is to buy the peach brandy business.
To determine whether Tina is legally bound to the head of agreement from Jeff, clearly,
the leader on the contract is considered as a non-binding agreement. It outlines the basis of the
terms of the tentative and proposed transaction. It only acts as the first step to initiate a legal
binding contract or agreement. The head-on agreement letter, the level to follow will require the
involvement of the attorney together with the accountant who will sign the binding contract
(Gostin, & Wiley, 2016). The question of whether the legal binding is a contract will depend on
the definition of terms of the contract document.
In the contract (term number 1), it is stated that Tina will buy the business (term number
7). From these terms, the head on the agreement is just a formal preparation of the contract is
based on the words that are worth accepting by Tina’s and Jeff’s solicitors (Hansmann, &

3
Kraakman, 2017). This means that the terms of agreements can still further be negotiated
formally between the respective two attorneys. However, the option to terminate the contract by
either party may not be available. To conclude, since there is no legal option for Tina to
terminate the agreement, she cannot terminate the contracts less; she loses the case in court to
Jeff. In other words, Tina is legally bound to the deal-making it hard to opt-out after that.
Therefore Jeff is right and can sue Tina for non-fulfillment of terms of the agreement.
Part B.
The conclusion to this case entirely depends on Tina’s position to be able to pay the full
finances that is $2.5 million. Failure to which she will not be eligible to buy the business creating
a room for her to opt-out of the contract without legal retardation legally. If the head on
agreement contained a section stating that, Tina shall only buy the business solely on obtaining
the specified financing in the contract. Later, it is proven that Tina does not have that amount;
she will not legally be tied to buying the business.
Question 2
According to the statements states in the subject, two characters are involved. Robert,
managing director of CheepCheep and Phil, managing director of Lights and Bright Company.
Also, as stated above, the purpose of Issue, Rule, Application/Analysis, and conclusion (IRAC)
in solving the misunderstandings between parties (Powers, 2017). It is a concept that is majorly
used by lawyers to settle complex cases.
Regarding the issues brought to IRAC are as a result of some legal ambiguity presented
against the facts. CheepCheep Company that was given a $75,000 loan as a result of friendship
from Light Bright for the payment of total order ordained. CheepCheep needs to pay back the
amount within the agreed contract terms. Should CheepCheep fail to honor the agreement, then

4
the Light Bright can file a case against them in the court of law. If the accusation is confirmed
correct, the government can lend a hand in recovering the loan from CheepCheep. With this
information at hand,
Part (a)
Phil, the managing director of Lights Bright Pty Ltd, should be held responsible for the
unpaid debt. By chance, should Phil fail to recover the amount in question ($75000) from
CheepCheep in the specific time as stated therein, he should be held liable. He then should pay
the amount because he knew the debt background of CheepCheep, but because of friendship, he
ignored the loaning rules. In his position, he is just an employee in the management position but
not the owner of the company. He has caused the company that $75000 which the owner will
have to incur as a loss to the company.
Part (b)
Robert, too, should be held responsible for the loan he accepted on behalf of the
CheepCheep. He knew the company he leads is not in a position to currently repay the borrowed
amount. He should not have ordered the products. What if it is a scheme by Robert to exploit
their friendship, knowing very well the position of the company in debt? He might be arguing
that Phil knew the CheepCheep current financial position.
Part (c)
Decision-making process requires directors, company officers, and the senior serving
officials who have offered the company due diligence and care. Before any deal is made,
particular prerequisites should be taken into account, which in this case, Phil and Robert ignored
embracing their relationship and that of their position in the companies.
Question 3 Part A: (a)

5
According to IRAC, Allan was fellow merchandise to kiss music as Francis. He has every
moral obligation to sue Francis in making a deal for buying his three Kiss items. Due to the
ongoing deal schedule that was engaged by Rick, her agent. Francis should not oppose the deal
action of Rick. The roles of an agent should be clarified to Francis since she had gone to the
extent of giving rick money to keep for future buying.
Part A: (b)
Should Allan agree to continue with the deal that had been initiated earlier by Rick,
Francis must not complete the contract to purchase the Status Quo albums from Allan. But on the
contrary, Rick should have consulted with Francis before striking a deal with Allan. In the case
that Francis accepts to continue with the contract, Allan should just let the deal progress but with
the presence of Rick who will afterords expalin her actions to hes boss.
Part B.
Francis had a right to be made aware of the deal Rick was about to initiate. He might
have been trusted with his boss with various duties and responsibilities, but he over-used his
authority. He has to be held accountable for the negligence of protocol and the breaching
contract formalities. The top management should be made aware of every activity that the agents
partake in and that the boss should consent to the idea. Should she ignore that move, then Rick
had no right to continue with the contract (Richardson, Hall, & Joiner, 2016). If the agent insists
on doing the business behind the boss, then that should be on his finances but not on Francis
money. Thus, there is no legal tie that can bur Francis from opting out of the contract formally.
Question 4 (a)
First, Prue should take the case to court against both the product (dress) manufactured by
Gladrags and the Bilton Hotel. When considering the case of JuPiter, the law is clear that the

6
product manufacturers should define and specify the terms on how to use their products. They
were aware that their clothes are made out of dangerous chemical toxins that should not be worn
before washing. To wash away the toxic chemicals that react speedily with the human skin to
cause harm (Rumore, 2016). The law requires that the producers should state the dos and don'ts
of their products in a clear and easy to understand manner to the consumer. In as much as they
were in a rush, they should have recommended for the washing of cloth before taking it to Prue,
but they did not. They can then be charged responsible with Prue's health condition thus should
cater to all the medical expenses that Prue have and will incur.
As well, since Prue was on an official business trip, this means that she was formally
registered and recognized with the Bilton Hotel management. The collapse of Prue on the stage
might mean that she consumed something toxic in the name of food and water (Sage, 2016).
With this in mind, the hotel also has to write a report on the occurrence of the event. If the
statement proves that it was food poisoning, then the hotel will be held liable for Prue's fate.
Part 4: (b)
If the court proves that the action to Prue's situation is as a result of either of the Gladrags
or the Bilton hotel, they will have to compensate Prue on the following charges (Swinburne, &
Sandson, 2019). First, they should cover all the medical expenses incurred by Prue in the
hospital. Besides, Prue was an employed spokesmodel who was earning a salary before this
misfortune. Since at the moment she is no longer worthy of her former job, the company should
calculate the remaining working-age. She should be compensated with the amount equivalent
cumulative to all her remaining working years.
References

7
Anderson, R. R. (2015). The Compensatory Disgorgement Alternative to Restatement Third's
New Remedy for Breach of Contract. SMUL Rev., 68, 953.
Golden, J. M. (2016). Reasonable Certainty in Contract and Patent Damages. Harv. JL &
Tech., 30, 257.
Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Univ of
California Press.
Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2017). The end of history for corporate law. In Corporate
Governance (pp. 49-78). Gower.
Hickey, S. J. (2017). Punitive damages for breach of contract: A Singaporean
perspective. Common Law World Review, 46(3), 239-245.
Margolis, J. D. (2015). Professionalism, fiduciary duty, and health-related business
leadership. Jama, 313(18), 1819-1820.
Phillips, A. M. (2016). Only a click away—DTC genetics for ancestry, health, love… and more:
A view of the business and regulatory landscape. Applied & translational genomics, 8,
16-22.
Powers, J. F. (2017). Paying for What You Get-Restitution Recovery for Breach of
Contract. Pace L. Rev., 38, 501.
Richardson, R. E., Hall, R., & Joiner, S. (2016). Workplace bullying in the United States: An
analysis of state court cases. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1256594.
Rumore, M. M. (2016). The Course Syllabus: Legal Contract or Operator’s Manual?. American
journal of pharmaceutical education, 80(10), 177.
Sage, N. W. (2016). Disgorgement: From property to contract. University of Toronto Law
Journal, 66(2), 244-272.

8
Swinburne, M., & Sandson, K. (2019). Food Waste: Addressing our 160 Billion Pound Public
Health Challenge with Policy and Business Interventions. The Journal of Law, Medicine
& Ethics, 47(2_suppl), 100-103.