Business Law 1018 - Legal Analysis: Partnership and Contract

This document presents a comprehensive legal analysis addressing several business law scenarios. It begins by examining partnership liability and the enforceability of verbal agreements, analyzing issues related to Mick and Keith's partnership, including Mick's contractual obligations and the validity of verbal agreements. The analysis then explores contract law principles concerning capacity, specifically focusing on the validity of contracts made during intoxication and the impact of verbal agreements. Furthermore, the document investigates the application of restraint clauses in employment contracts, determining the enforceability of such clauses in Graham's case. Finally, the analysis delves into copyright law, determining the ownership of an original video and the implications of unauthorized distribution. The document provides detailed legal reasoning, referencing relevant legislation and case law to support its conclusions and offering a thorough understanding of the legal principles involved.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Answer to question 1.1 (a):..............................................................................................................2
Issue:............................................................................................................................................2
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................2
Application:.................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................3
Answer to question 1.1 (b):.............................................................................................................3
Issue:............................................................................................................................................3
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................3
Application:.................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................5
Answer to question 1.2....................................................................................................................5
Issue:............................................................................................................................................5
Rules:...........................................................................................................................................5
Application:.................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................6
Answer to question 1.3....................................................................................................................6
Issue:............................................................................................................................................6
Rules:...........................................................................................................................................6
Application:.................................................................................................................................7

2BUSINESS LAW
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................7
Answer to question 2:......................................................................................................................8
Issue:............................................................................................................................................8
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................8
Application:.................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................9
Reference:......................................................................................................................................10

3BUSINESS LAW
Answer to question 1.1 (a):
Issue:
The main issue of this case is to determine whether the verbal agreement signed by Mick can be
enforceable against Keith or not.
Rule:
The subject matter of the case is based on the general liability of the partnership. A partnership is
an agreement where two or more persons want to carry on a business and share their profit,
assets and other liabilities regarding the business. A flexible business structure is necessary in
case of partnership and it allows any of the partners to deal the business in lieu of other partners.
According to the general rule of partnership, all the partners should agree to all the liabilities that
will be occurred during their partnership (Barron 2012). It is a common principle of partnership
that all the partners will be liable for the act of any one of the partners. According to section 5 of
the Partnership Act 1958, every partner is the agent of the firm and the other partners and he can
carry on the business in lieu of others. Therefore, all the partners will be liable for the acts of
other partners. According to section 9 of the Act, every partner is acting as both an agent and a
principal. According to section 16, in case of any negligent act of any partner, all the other
partners have to carry out the liability. Certain provisions of the law of agency will also apply in
this case.

4BUSINESS LAW
Application:
In this present case, it has been observed that a contract has been made in between the performer
and Jagger Scaffolding and Partners regarding the concoction of the stage. Mick had signed on
the contract on behalf of the partnership firm where Keith is another partner. It has been
contracted with Mick that all the stage work will be done in a systematic way and certain terms
of the contract have been made in between Mick and the performer. However, at the date of the
program, it has been found by the performer that none of the additional terms that have been
agreed by the parties verbally maintained properly. Therefore, Mick has made a breach. In the
contract, he has signed on behalf of the partnership. According to the general rule, Keith will be
held liable, as he is one of the partners and Mick has acted as an agent on behalf of other partner.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Keith will be liable for the contract signed by Mick.
Answer to question 1.1 (b):
Issue:
The main issue of this case is to determine whether the verbal agreements assured by Mick are
valid or not.
Rule:
The main subject matter of the case is based on the validity of the verbal agreement. According
to the general rule of contract law, any contract whether written or oral is valid in nature. It has
been established in Van Den Esschert v Chappell, that in case of verbal agreement, the intention
of the parties are important and in case both the parties agreed to certain terms and conditions, it
will bind on the parties and in that case, it is not required that the terms should be mentioned in

5BUSINESS LAW
the written contracts. Further, in De Lasalle v Guildford, it has been observed by the court that
an oral contract is valid and the party accept the offers should have to act according to those
terms and in case of any breach, the affected party can claim compensation and repudiate the
contract. According to the common provision of the contract law, in case all the essential
elements of contract such as offer, acceptance to the offer, consideration and intention of the
parties has been maintained by the parties, the contract will be enforceable in nature and all the
parties will be bound by the terms. In Wakeling v Ripley, court has decided that when one party
has made any promise and the other party is relied on the terms of the promise so badly that non-
compliance of the promise will incur huge loss to the party, the promise maker is obliged under
the law to maintain all the promises. This is called promissory estoppels.
Application:
In this case, it has been observed that certain verbal agreement have been made regarding the
decoration of the stage and Mick has assured the performer that he will arrange all the necessary
things for the performer at the date of performance. The performer has demanded certain
decoration plan to Mick regarding the technical tower, spot light ramp and certification of the
partnership firm. However, all these terms have been assured verbally and none of the terms
have been mentioned in the contract. According to the provision of Van Den Esschert v
Chappell, it can be stated that the partnership firm is bound by all these verbal agreements.
Further, the firm is required to arrange all these materials under the rules of promissory
estoppels.

6BUSINESS LAW
Conclusion:
To conclude, the firm has to arrange all these assured materials for the program.
Answer to question 1.2.
Issue:
The main issue of the case is to discuss whether the contract made during intoxication is valid or
not.
Rules:
The present case is based on one of the essential elements of contract that is capacity of the
parties. According to the general principle, the parties to the contract should be mentally capable
to enter into the contract and they should have enough soundness to enter into a contract. When a
party accepts an offer, it is required to be determined whether the party is in the condition to
understand the value of the contract or not (Carter 2013). The mental capacity of the person
becomes unstable at the time of intoxication and in that case, anything done by the person ought
not to be counted. The concept if meeting of minds is not possible when a person is intoxicated
and they are not in a position to understand what they are doing or agreeing. In Blomley v Ryan
(1956) 99 CLR 362, court has held that mere drunkenness could not be a defence. The parties
have to show that the drinks seriously affected them and in that case, they will not be responsible
for any contractual terms and condition.
Application:
In this case, both the performers were boozed after consuming so much alcohol at the party and it
has been observed their steps were swaying. They could not talk with the guests in a proper way,
as they were intoxicated. In that stage, it is not possible for them to understand the effectiveness

7BUSINESS LAW
of any statements or validity of any contract. However, another person named Ronnie was with
them and did not consume any alcohol. While roaming with the performers, he had proposed to
make certain contracts regarding another performance and offered certain monies to them. Due
to heavy consumption of alcohol, the performers had accepted the offer and based on their
statement, Ronnie had booked a show on 20th June. According to the common rule, no valid
contract has been made between the parties as the contract has been made during intoxication.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that no valid contract has been made between the parties.
Answer to question 1.3.
Issue:
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Graham is bound by the restraint clause in the
employment contract or not.
Rules:
The subject matter of the case is based on restraint clause of an employment contract. The main
aim of this provision is to protect the proprietary interest of the employers. According to this
rule, a proprietary interest denotes the confidentiality of the employment and the client
connection (Ciro, Goldwasser and Verma 2014). According to section 23 of the Bill of Rights,
practice of any trade is a constitutional right of an individual and can only be restrained after
verifying the reasonableness. According to the provisions of contract law, if the parties owe a
legitimate interest regarding the restraint of trade to protect the interest, he can do the same. In
case of employment contract, restraint provisions are justified (Gibson and Frase 2016). A valid
restraint clause should follow certain elements such as:

8BUSINESS LAW
 There should be certain valid interest that are required to be protected;
 The nature of the interests should be reasonable;
 No contrary provision should be included in the restraint clause with public interest.
According to Greig v Insole [1978] 3 All ER 449, the employers should have a valid interest and
the nature of the interest should be legal. Any personal interest could not be labeled as valid
interest. If an employee is restrained to profess any business of similar kind after the termination
of his employment, it will be amount as void and unenforceable. Further, it is required to
determine the interest of the employer that must be reasonable. Further, according to Northern
Tablelands Insurance Brokers Pty Limited v Howell [2009] NSW SC 426, certain matters are
required to be proved in case of post employment restraint. The employer has to prove that the
employee has an access to the confidential information of the company and any leakage of the
information can be proved detrimental for the employer. Further, the client connection of the
employer could be hampered by the acts of the employee.
Application:
In this case, it has been observed that certain restraint provisions were there in the employment
contract of Graham, where he was restrained to join any similar job within five years after his
termination from the present job. However, it has been observed that he had joined another band
after his termination, which is a rival group of his previous band. Therefore, there is a possibility
that the proprietary interest of his previous employer could be hampered, as the confidentiality of
his business and the client connection could be hampered.
Conclusion:
Graham is therefore, bound by the restraint clause of his employment contract.

9BUSINESS LAW
Answer to question 2:
Issue:
The main issue of this case is to determine the real owner of the original video.
Rule:
The subject matter of the case is based on the provision of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). According
to general provision of the Act, copy right is a legal right where the creativity of an artist could
be secured and it disable other to imitate the creativity. According to section 31 of the Act, the
artist has exclusive rights of copyright. Further, it has been mentioned in section 32 of the Act,
the author should be the qualified person to derive the copyright from original artistic or musical
work. The term “qualified person” denotes that the person should be Australian citizen. There are
certain moral rights provisions that have been included under the Australian Copyright
Legislation in 2000. If an individual has attempted to reproduce or distribute any copyrighted
facts to the public, he will be charged for breach of copyright. According to section 33 of the
Act, any other individual could get the copyright on the artistic or musical work of other only
after fifty years of the death of the artist.
Application:
In this case, it has been observed that certain musical performances have been performed and Joe
had created the video and uploaded the same in you tube. Further, Don had uploaded the same
video after certain modification in it. However, no one had informed the original singer of the
video and it has been observed that any of them has obtained any copy right regarding the video.
According to the general rules of the Copyright Act, the actual copyright holder for the original
work is the singer and no one has any rights over the performance. Therefore, it can be stated

10BUSINESS LAW
that neither Joe nor Don has any authority to claim them as the owner of the singing video.
Further, they should not upload the video without notifying the original singer of the
performance.
Conclusion:
Original singer owns the copyright of the original video and Joe and Don had infringed the
copyright.

11BUSINESS LAW
Reference:
Barron, ML 2012, Fundamentals of Business Law, 7th edn, McGraw-Hil Australia, North Ryde,
N.S.W (pp. 261-268)
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 (pp. 393-408)
Boatright, JR 2012, Ethics and the conduct of business, 7th edn, Pearson, Upper Saddle River,
N.J (505), 1
Carter, JW 2013, Contract law in Australia, 6th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood,
N.S.W. (pp. 104-107)
Ciro, T, Goldwasser, V & Verma, R 2014, Law and business, 4th edn, Oxford University Press,
South Melbourne, Vic (Note: this book is available online via the UNISA library) (pp. 100-110)
De Lasalle v Guildford [1901] 2 KB 215
Gibson, A and Fraser, D 2016, Business Law, 9th edn, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney
Greig v Insole [1978] 3 All ER 449
Hage, J, Akkermans, B & Springerlink, 2014, Introduction to Law, Springer International
Publishing : Imprint: Springer, Cham. (Note: this book is available online via the UNISA
library) (pp. 261-268)
Latimer, P. 2016, Australian Business Law, CCH. 51(4), 499-508
Northern Tablelands Insurance Brokers Pty Limited v Howell [2009] NSW SC 426
Van Den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR114