Business Law Assignment: Contract, Partnership, and Corporate Law

This business law assignment solution analyzes two key legal issues. The first issue concerns the enforceability of a trade union agreement following a business transfer, examining the concept of "associated entities" under the Corporations Act 2001 and relevant case law, including NSW Ho v Horizon Iris P/L and Szymanik v FGP. The analysis explores whether employee contracts are automatically transferred and the implications of contract variations. The second issue focuses on the business form adopted by Obama, Hilary, and Bush, differentiating between joint ventures and partnerships. The assignment discusses the liabilities of each party, the role of written agreements, and the applicability of the Partnership Act 1892, referencing Wang v Rong to determine whether partners can receive salaries. The solution provides a detailed application of legal principles to the provided scenarios, offering a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
The main issue relation to the provided scenario is what shall be the chances of the trade
union regarding the enforcement of the agreement established on the 1st day of the month of July
in the year 2005.
Rule
According to section 50AAA as provided in the Corporations Act of the year 2001, a
particular entity shall be considered to be an associated entity in relation to any other entity if
both the entities are related corporate bodies, and one of the entities have an influence in relation
to another one of the entities, and within the time period of three months the employees of the
old entity are engaged in the new entity in similar or identical positions.
The case of NSW Ho v Horizon Iris P/L [2010] FWA 9329 shall be considered to be a
significant case in relation to the provided scenario. In this specific case, it was stated that the
definition relating to ‘associated entities’ as provided in the Corporations Act of 2001 was
satisfied as the initial or original organization had control in relation to the associated
organization.
The case of Szymanik v FGP (in liq.) [2013] FWC 4947 must be regarded as a pertinent
case in relation to the provided scenario. In this case, it was mentioned that transfer relating to
business shall not be construed as the automatic transference of the employees from old company
to any new company. It had been stated that no employee can be transmitted or transferred from
one employer to any other employer in the absence of implied or express consent of the

2BUSINESS LAW
employees. Hence, under such conditions it may be said that it shall be difficult for the employee
to establish that the former employment contract would be enforceable.
The case of Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383 shall be
considered to be a significant case in connection to the provided scenario. In this case, it had
been said that any attempt or endeavor to separately cause a variation in relation to the contract
in the absence of the consent concerning the other party shall result in the violation of the
contract. Relating to specific situations, a variant clause may validate or substantiate changes or
modifications in connection to the nature regarding employment, although, it may be said that
nothing can justify or validate unauthorized or unsanctioned deductions in relation to the wages
of the employees.
Application
Applying section 50AAA as provided in the Corporations Act of the year 2001 in the
provided scenario, it may be said that Caterers Ltd shall be considered to be an associated entity
in relation to Casino Ltd if both the entities are related corporate bodies, and one of the entities
have an influence in relation to another one of the entities, and within the time period of three
months the employees of the old entity are engaged in the new entity in similar or identical
positions.
Applying the case of NSW Ho v Horizon Iris P/L [2010] FWA 9329 in the provided
scenario, it may be said that two companies shall be considered to be ‘associated entities’ as
provided in the Corporations Act of 2001 when the initial or original organization had control in
relation to the associated organization.

3BUSINESS LAW
Applying the case of Szymanik v FGP (in liq.) [2013] FWC 4947 in the provided
scenario, it can be said that transfer relating to business shall not be construed as the automatic
transference of the employees from old company to any new company. It may be stated that no
employee can be transmitted or transferred from one employer to any other employer in the
absence of implied or express consent of the employees. Hence, under such conditions it may be
said that it shall be difficult for the employee to establish that the former employment contract
would be enforceable.
Applying the case of Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383 in the
provided scenario, it may be said that any attempt or endeavor to separately cause a variation in
relation to the contract in the absence of the consent concerning the other party shall result in the
violation of the contract. Relating to specific situations, a variant clause may validate or
substantiate changes or modifications in connection to the nature regarding employment,
although, it may be said that nothing can justify or validate unauthorized or unsanctioned
deductions in relation to the wages of the employees.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that the chances of the trade union regarding the enforcement
of the agreement established on the 1st day of the month of July in the year 2005 exists as the
transfer of an employee from one associated company to another associated company does not
terminate the terms in relation to the former contract.

4BUSINESS LAW
Question 2
Issue
The issue in relation to the provided scenario is what the form is in relation to the
business that Obama, Hilary and Bush are conducting, and whether Obama can be made
accountable in case the parties are willing to establish contract with outsiders.
Rule
In case of a joint venture, two individuals or more than two individuals (or
establishments) work jointly in relation to the same planned objective. However, all the
individuals or establishments uphold and preserve their distinct businesses while being involved
in the joint venture. It may be decided by a business to establish certain joint venture agreement
for the purposes of several long-term or short-term projects like property development,
transportation agreements, publishing agreements, mining syndicates, travel agreements, and
agreements relating to research and development. Each involved party shall be accountable in
relation to the debts that may be incurred by the involved parties as per the arrangement,
although, the involved parties generally divide and distribute the profits among themselves after
the project is concluded. A joint venture agreement that is written, administers the relation
concerning the parties regarding the joint venture.
Unlike the joint venture which comes to an end or is concluded, partnership is regarded
as a continuing and constant relationship between the involved parties. It is generally restricted
to a quantum of twenty partners and contrasting to a company, partnership is not regarded as a
distinct legal body. Instead, the involved partners are considered to be accountable in relation to
the activities regarding the partnership, in a joint and cooperative manner. For instance, an

5BUSINESS LAW
involved partner shall be considered to be accountable regarding the debts of the partnership in
case the other involved partners do not have the capacity to make the payments. The
aforementioned facts are considered to be the primary difference in relation to a partnership
agreement and a joint venture. An agreement of partnership that is written form, administers the
relation of the parties who all are involved in the partnership.
The case of Wang v Rong [2015] NSWSC 1419 must be regarded as a significant case in
relation to the provided scenario. It was highlighted by the court that as per the Partnership Act
of 1892 and the principles relating to partnerships, where an express provision exists, salaries
may be permitted in relation to the partners.
Application
Applying the principles relating to joint venture, it may be said that all the individuals or
establishments uphold and preserve their distinct businesses while being involved in the joint
venture. It may be decided by a business to establish certain joint venture agreement for the
purposes of several long-term or short-term projects like property development, transportation
agreements, publishing agreements, mining syndicates, travel agreements, and agreements
relating to research and development. Obama, Bush and Hillary may be accountable in relation
to the debts that may be incurred by the involved parties as per the arrangement, although, they
may generally divide and distribute the profits among themselves after the project is
concluded. A joint venture agreement that is written, administers the relation concerning the
parties regarding the joint venture.
Applying the principles relating to partnership, it can be said that it is regarded as a
continuing and constant relationship between the involved parties. It is generally restricted to a
quantum of twenty partners and contrasting to a company, partnership is not regarded as a

6BUSINESS LAW
distinct legal body. Instead, the involved partners are considered to be accountable in relation to
the activities regarding the partnership, in a joint and cooperative manner. For instance, an
involved partner shall be considered to be accountable regarding the debts of the partnership in
case the other involved partners do not have the capacity to make the payments. The
aforementioned facts are considered to be the primary difference in relation to a partnership
agreement and a joint venture. An agreement of partnership that is written form, administers the
relation of the parties who all are involved in the partnership.
Applying Wang v Rong [2015] NSWSC 1419, it can be said that as per the Partnership
Act of 1892 and the principles relating to partnerships, where an express provision exists,
salaries may be permitted in relation to the partners.
Conclusion
To conclude, the form in relation to the business that Obama, Hilary and Bush are
conducting shall depend upon the aforementioned principles, and Obama can be made
accountable in case the parties are willing to establish contract with outsiders.

7BUSINESS LAW
References
Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth).
Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383.
NSW Ho v Horizon Iris P/L [2010] FWA 9329.
Partnership Act, 1892 (NSW).
Szymanik v FGP (in liq.) [2013] FWC 4947.
Wang v Rong [2015] NSWSC 1419.