Business Law Analysis Report: Identifying Legal Issues for Business

This report provides a comprehensive legal analysis of various issues that Joseph, a business owner, faces in his early-stage business. Using the IRAC methodology, the report examines scenarios related to contract law, business structure (specifically limited liability partnerships), intellectual property protection for his bakery's signature designs, and potential negligence claims. The analysis covers the essential elements of contract formation, the advantages of a limited liability partnership for protecting partners, the importance of trademark and design registration for intellectual property, and the criteria for establishing negligence in a court of law. The report concludes with recommendations for Joseph to mitigate legal risks and protect his business interests.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
Business Law Analysis Report
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
Introduction
There are various legal issues, which a business may be subjected to when it has
started to carry out its operations. This issue needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner
by the business owners so that they are no subjected to legal sanctions. These issues are
primarily related to the law of contracts, business, intellectual property, negligence and
employments matters. The purpose of this paper is to analyze such issues in the light to for
scenarios, which Joseph has been subjected to. The paper does so using the IRAC
methodology, which involves identifying the key issue and the law to apply it on the facts
and derive a conclusion. The paper also highlights some general points for business such as a
contract being in writing will help prove the terms in the court even where oral contracts are
enforceable.
Scenario one
Issue
The issue in this scenario is related to contract law. Specifically the concern is that
whether a legally binding contract exists between Joseph and his cousin.
Rule
For the formation of valid contract there are specifically five elements, which are
mandatorily required. These include offer, acceptance, consideration, intention and capacity.
The offer is element, which initiates the formation of a contract. This is a statement which
signifies that a person is willing to start a legal relationship based on the terms of the offer
(McKendrick 2014). The offer in itself does not create a contract and is required to be
accepted by a person who is willing to follow its terms.

2BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
An acceptance is to be made with free consent and without any type of contract vitiating
factors being present such as Misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or coercion. The
acceptance takes place when the party signifies willingness to be bound by the offer terms. In
the case of Harvey V Facey [1893] a precedent was set which stated that acceptance has to be
Unequivocal. In the case of Hyde V Wrench [1840] a precedent was set which stated that
acceptance has to be communicated. However, there are some exceptions to this rule such as
the postal rule and unilateral acceptance.
A consideration is anything of value, which is provided in return of a promise to do or
abstaining from doing something (Cartwright 2016). A consideration must be present for the
formation of a valid contract. Without it, the agreement is not enforceable at law as per the
case of Chappel & Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd. [1960] AC 87
Intention means the wish of a person to bind him legally to the terms of the agreement. there
is a general rule at common law that agreements which is of a commercial nature have
intention as per the case of Stilk V Myrick [1809] and agreements entered domestically and
socially do not have intention as per the case of Stevenson V McLean [1880]. However, there
is scope for such presumptions to be rebutted (Stone and Devenney 2017).
Capacity refers to the age and metal state of a person or any legal restrictions, which are on a
person from entering into a contract.
Application
Joseph has outsourced the production of the croissconenut to his cousin. This can be
considered as a valid offer, which is required to initiate a contract. It has also been provided
that the offer was accepted by Alfred. Alfred had agreed on the terms of supplying all the
required baked goods on a daily basis for Joseph’s small bakery. Thereafter, Joseph wanted to

3BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
make a few modifications in the contract by asking Alfred to increase the production of
croissconecuts to 100 per day. This requirement was not mentioned in the written contract
that was formed between Alfred and Joseph (Bently and Sherman 2014). As these specific
elements were not mentioned in the contract before and it was being mentioned orally, an
enforceable contract will not be formed between Alfred and Joseph thereafter. As per the rule
of law and the relevant legislation, when a contract is formed, every terms and conditions
should be specified in the beginning in a written format.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded stating that the specific elements, which were mentioned by
Joseph, will not make an enforceable contract with Alfred.
Scenario Two
Issue
The related issue of this scenario is whether Joseph would form his business based on
Limited Liability.
Rule
As per the legislation, a limited liability partnership is defined as a partnership where
all the partners are entitled to limited liabilities. This refers to a situation where the elements
are exhibited of partnerships and the corporation’s (Adriaanse 2016). When a business is
formed under a partnership of limited liability, each partner will not be held liable for the
negligence or misconduct of another party. It can be advised that for the structure of business,
one should opt for a partnership of limited liability. This way, he can ensure that all the
partners including him can be kept protected if anything goes wrong in the business. As per
the Corporations Act, 2001, the limited liability partnership generally provides incentives to

4BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
the managers as well for acting efficiently and in the interests of the shareholders by
promoting the transfer of shares.
An incorporated limited partnership is considered a special kind of limited partnership that
has been used by the businesses, which are associated in high-risk venture capital projects as
it was observed in the case of ASIC v Healey & Ors. [2011] FCA 71. Therefore, there can be
an incorporation of a small business as a limited liability company since it will fulfil his
requirements (Hannigan 2015). As per the law, limited liability decreases the need for
shareholders to investigate the managers of the companies in which they invest since the
financial consequences of the failures are limited. A partnership of limited liability helps in
having an efficient operation of the securities markets as well.
Application
Since Joseph is forming his small business with his two siblings, it can be said that if
the rule or law is applied, Joseph must form a business partnership of Limited liability. This
is because Joseph wanted to protect his siblings along with himself if anything goes wrong in
the business. As per the law and as it have been mentioned above, a partnership of limited
liability saves the partners if the company undergoes any kind of losses. Thus, by registering
the company as a limited liability partnership, the needs of Joseph will be satisfied.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that Joseph has been recommended to form a business of limited
liability partnership with his two siblings for protecting them and himself.
Scenario 3
Issue

5BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
The issue in this scenario whether Joseph can protect the value and signature design
that is on the baked goods of his business.
Rule
The Australian Intellectual Property Laws exists for protecting intangible business
including trademarks, patents and designs. The purpose of the Australian Intellectual
Property Law is to encourage the innovation and protect the businesses from developing the
original copy (Andrews 2015). Therefore, there is a well-developed legal system for
protecting the intellectual property of individuals and businesses. A business must therefore
must register a trademark as it a marketing tool. If the trademark of the business is registered
then it will provide proper legal protection that helps in preventing others from using that
particular brand (Sherwin 2015). Hence, trademarks are protected and issued in Australia.
Australia is said to have a statutory framework for registering of the designs. There is a
necessary application that needs to be filed with the designs office of IP Australia. Thereafter,
it is the responsibility of the designs office to assess whether the design of the intangible
property is meeting the requirements of the legislation. The application for the design can be
filed that contains a single design, which is related to plenty of products. The material must
therefore be protected in Australia under the legislative framework. For this, no specific
registration is required as it has been observed in the case of Modena Trading v Cantarella
Bros [2013] 213 FCR 16.
Application
As observed from the scenario of the case study, it can be stated since Joseph was
concerned about protecting the value and name of his bakery then. The restaurant, which he
opened, named “The Croissconenut” for his bakery. Therefore, he wanted to get a design on
his own signature baked goods. As per the legislation, it can be said that Joseph has the right

6BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
to protect his signature baked goods from making others use it. By registering his signature
baked goods of his bakery, he can prevent or limit other individuals from using it by their
own name. His bakery goods should be registered from copyright and trademark. Therefore,
by this procedure, Joseph is capable of protecting his design from the baked goods.
Conclusion
Lastly, it can be concluded stating that by registering the signature baked goods under
the designs office of IP Australia, Joseph can protect the products of his restaurant which is
“The Croissconenut”.
Scenario 4
Issue
The related issue of this situation is whether a Court can interpret negligence when the
matter will go up to trial.
Rule
The rule or tort of negligence is defined as a legal wrong that is suffered by someone
at the hands of another who fails to take proper care for avoiding the reasonable person who
is regarded as a foreseeable risk. There a few basic elements of negligence, which includes
duty of care, breach of duty of care, causation and remoteness. These elements must therefore
be present for proving a case of negligence (Byrne 2017). These essential elements were
therefore established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562.
For a duty of care claims that there was an involvement of damage, which included physical
injury as it, was summed up in the case of Caparo v Dickman. There are formal requirements
that should be satisfied before the basic duty of care is held. It was evident in this situation

7BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
that there was forseeability of damage, a proximate relationship between the parties and the
impose of the duties (Drahos 2016). However, it can stated that if the primary factors or
elements act as the evidence then negligence will be constituted. Therefore, negligent conduct
consists either of the act or an omission to act when there is a duty for doing so. Thereafter, if
the defendant had a duty to act and failed to carry out that by causing an injury then the
action’s of the defendant will be classified as misfeasance. On the other hand, the plaintiff
must prove either the bodily harm or if any harm was caused to the property (Godwin,
Godwin and Ainsworth 2018). If there was any kind of pure economic loss then it will not
meet the requirement of the injury. Lastly, as per the rule it can be said only if the above
mentioned elements are proved, negligence will be constituted.
Application
From the scenario, it was observed that an accident had occurred outside the shop of
Joseph. There was a grand opening of his shop. Due to the sign of grand opening, a bicyclist
crashed into that sign because of its positioning and suffered bodily injuries. Since he
suffered minor injury, he wanted to sue Joseph for negligence, as he should not have placed
that sign of grand opening at that spot. However, for the injuries, Joseph has to pay an
amount of $4000. It can be said that since there was a bodily harm suffered by the bicyclist,
Joseph will be held liable for negligence.
Conclusion
It can be concluded stating that Joseph will be held liable for negligence and must
compensate the bicyclist as he had suffered minor physical injuries.

8BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
References:
Journals
Adriaanse, M.J., 2016. Construction contract law. Palgrave Macmillan.
Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, N., 2016. Sources and General Principles of English Contract Law. In Arbitration
and Contract Law (pp. 165-175). Springer, Cham.
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Byrne, M., 2017. Selecting and instructing expert witnesses in medical negligence
claims. Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia), 39(11), p.24
Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil
lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Drahos, P., 2016. A philosophy of intellectual property. Routledge.
Godwin, E., Godwin, K. and Ainsworth, S., 2018. Policy analysis by corporations and trade
associations. Policy Analysis in the United States, 12, p.223.
Hannigan, B., 2015. Company law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Jondle, R.J., Hill, K.K. and Sanny, T., 2015. Current legal issues in intellectual property
rights and protection for crop plants. Crop Science, 55(6), pp.2496-2503.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S.,
2017. Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press
(UK).

9BUSINESS LAW ANALYSIS REPORT
Sherwin, E.L., 2015. Formal Elements of Contract and Fiduciary Law.
Stone, R. and Devenney, J., 2017. The modern law of contract. Routledge.
Case Laws
ASIC v Healey & Ors. [2011] FCA 71
Caparo v Dickman
Chappel & Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd. [1960] AC 87
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Harvey V Facey [1893]
Hyde V Wrench [1840]
Modena Trading v Cantarella Bros [2013] 213 FCR 16
Stevenson V McLean [1880]
Stilk V Myrick [1809]