Business Law Assignment: Directors' Duties and Company Contracts

This assignment delves into the intricacies of business law, specifically focusing on the duties of directors as outlined in the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) and the implications of company contracts. The first part of the assignment examines a scenario involving directors Patel, Rick, and Lana, analyzing whether they have violated the provisions of s. 180 regarding the duty of care and diligence. It explores the application of the business judgment rule and relevant case law, such as ASIC v Healey and AWA Ltd v Daniels. The analysis considers the actions of each director in relation to a business decision, evaluating whether they met the standards of a reasonable director. The second part of the assignment assesses whether the company is bound by a lease agreement signed by Rick, examining the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act, particularly s. 126 and s. 127, concerning the execution of contracts. It considers the authority of individuals to bind a company and the formalities required for valid contract execution, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal requirements in business operations.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
ANSWER 1
Identified Issue
To find out whether or not the provisions of directors’ duties under the Corporation Act 2001
(Cth) have been violated
Identified Rule
The individual who has absolute control over managing the operation in the organization in
which they work is said to be a director (Coffee, Sale and Henderson 2015). The court stated that
if the directors of a company are seen to be in relationship said to be fiduciary in accordance with
the company they work in, then it is their responsibility to make sure that their work is said to be
the best for the organization as any other fiduciary agent, as per the case of ASIC v Healey
[2011] FCA 717. Several duties are imposed on the directors in regards to their position in the
company they work in. The directors of the company are imposed such duties under the
provisions mentioned in the CA and also the common law. According to the application of the
CA, the first duty which the director holds while operating the business in Australia is duty of
observing diligence and reasonable care. The s. 180 of the CA, describes exactly what the duty is
made up of. This section is then separated in two sub parts. The first portion of the section states
the rules by which it is determined that when can the duty of diligence and sensible care, is
contradicted by the director. In the second portion of the section, includes the business judgment
under the common law into the legislation. These rules are also said to be a type of defense, upon
which the directors have their confidence in taking risky decisions regarding business (Mann and
Roberts 2015).

2BUSINESS LAW
This section exactly signifies that any director of the company or any officer of the organization
who have been given the authority to manage the matters in their work requires to make note of
due care and diligence while working for the company. They need to work as a sensible person,
that is the powers needs to be put into action and duties need to be released by the director or the
officer in the similar situation in the same company or they have occupied similar responsibility
in the same office as of the director. Thus, the conclusion of this section in regards to the
corporate law states that a director of the company needs to express extraordinary skills in the
process of managing company operations, rather the director requires to follow similar skills
which any sensible director would have done being in an identical situation and similar position.
According to ASIC v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17, the director is expected to violate the section if it
is determined that director was not notified himself in regards to the matters of the company
decisions which were made by them, the director was not able to be present in the meetings of
the discussion which was required to carry out the business activities properly, and therefore they
failed to manage the operations of the company properly (Du Plessis 2017).
The director did not abide by the duties which were provided by s. 180(1), because they violated
the s. 1041H of the CA, as their behaviour was deceptive and misleading in regards to the
prospectus document, as per the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v
Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited [2016] FCA 42. The court stated that when the directors
do not abide by the lawful requirements they could have acted more carefully and diligently in

3BUSINESS LAW
regards to manage the business affairs as a sensible director would do in similar situation, he
would not have taken any actions that would lead towards lawful obligations.
In case the director of a company is unable to abide by the provisions under s. 189 which states
that the director who wants to have a confidence in the advice given by other individual, requires
to have a sensible assumption that the advice he is getting is correct and competent, as per AWA
Ltd v Daniels t/a Deloitte Haskins & Sells & Ors (1992) 10 ACLC 933; (1992) 7 ACSR 759
They require to make self-analysis into the company matters themselves for the purpose of
fulfilling their thoughts in regards to the advice and its quality. If such requirements are not
followed properly, then the director is held for not acting carefully and diligently in regards to
the company operation and therefore, the director has violated the provisions under the s. 180 of
the corporation act.
Meanwhile the s. 180(2) of the corporation act, brings up a scenario in which the directors of the
company are able to skip the allegations of violating the duty of diligence and care. If the role of
the business judgement is fulfilled by the directors of that company, then the court states the
requirements of s. 180(1) to be met, for the purpose of satisfying this business judgement rule the
decision which was made by the directors requires to be in the company’s proper purpose and
good faith. It was also added that directors of the company must not have any sort of interest in
setting such an order to match with the mentioned requirements under the rule. The directors are
required to notify themselves for the purpose of fulfilling what the rule requires. Realistic belief
is required to see whether the decisions taken by the director are for the benefit of the company.

4BUSINESS LAW
The term belief in this scenario is regarded as realistic unless no such director would indulge in
such a thing. As per the case of ASIC v Rich the business judgement rule was used.
According to the s. 9 of the CA, a director is an individual who seriously take part in the decision
making of the company and then influences such a process is said to be a director.
Application
The purpose for analysing whether or not the provisions of s. 180 of the Corporation act are
violated depends on how the directors have followed the duties and how they have use their
powers. There is the given scenario in which it is said that Patel and Rick are the directors of a
company. Meanwhile Lana also participated in the process of decision making such a process
makes the person a director under s. 9.
In the scenario stated it is analysed that the Company had the business of selling fruit but as it
was not going well, Rick decided to change the location of the business. While searching for
places to run the business came across the premises which were owned by Watel private limited,
this premises meanwhile suited the best for Rick. Even though the rent of the premises Is high,
there is no such competition of any similar business nearby. There was a thought in the mind of
Rick, that they could even start serving coffee in their fruit shop. Meanwhile, the lease papers
were signed by Rick, even though they did not consulted with the directors of the company.
According to the provisions mentioned in the s. 180(1) it is stated that Rick requires to display
similar skills as any sensible director being in the similar company identical position might have
realized. But it was said that no sensible director will ever get involved into any sort of work of
the company without having to consult the board. Therefore, as the provisions of s. 180(2) will

5BUSINESS LAW
not be appropriate for this case, Rick is said to have violated the s. 180(1) of corporation act.
Rick Introduced a meeting, in which he was making the other directors of the company
understand that how his actions would turn out to be for the betterment of the company. Both
Lana and Patel agreed with the decision which Rick made, Patel did not protest against it and
Lana thought it would have been better if he consulted the board before making the decision. It
was stated that the directors require making self judgments and showing personal connection
towards the company affairs, and having sensible belief before having confidence in the advice
of other individual that it is informed and correct, as per the case of AWA Ltd v Daniels t /a
Deloitte Haskins and Sells and Ors. As no personal judgments were made in this scenario, the
section might also be said to be violated by Patel and Lana.
In this scene the provisions under s. 180(2) requires to be enforced for the purpose of
determining whether or not the duty of s. 180(1) have been complied. The directors according to
the test of s. 180(2) require to notify other directors about the matter before taking any decision
in regards to the company. In this case, Rick was seen to be informing himself that the business
will be running properly as there were no such competitors nearby. But, later unspecified events
lead to the failure of business. No material interest was seen on by Rick in regards to the subject
matter of the transactions, therefore he had abide by the s. 180(2). The actions made by him will
said to be stubborn if the sensible director might not have taken any such decision after seeing
the risk which was involved in it. But, in this scenario no such risk was present, therefore is said
to have abide by the provisions under s. 180(2) corporation act. Patel had also abide by the s.
180(2) of corporation act, as he had no personal interest in dealing and had complete confidence
in the advice given by Rick. Meanwhile, Lana had a feeling that Rick required to consult the

6BUSINESS LAW
board before making any such decision, as she would have personally made the judgment and
made a research before agreeing to the decision of Rick. Therefore in this scenario, she did not
take care of notifying others regarding the business decision making and hence does not abide by
the provisions under s. 180(2).
Conclusion
Therefore from the above mentioned discussion it can be said that on the basis of the initial
impression Patel and Rick the directors of the company are seen to have violated the provisions
under s. 180(2), but they have the right under the business judgement rule to claim a defence for
the following. Though, Lana wanted to be informed before the decision was made as she could
not carry out a research or any judgement then she might not abide by the provisions under s.
180(2).
ANSWER 2
Identified Issue
To find out whether or not the company is binding by the lease which was formed by Rick.
Applicable Law
A person might exercise the power provided by the company to vary, discharge or rectify and
make a contract with the person performing as an expressed or implied authority which is given

7BUSINESS LAW
by company, according to s. 126 of the corporation act. Even without using the company’s
common seal these powers could be operated. It was also stated that the specific procedure which
was required in regards to the contract, the sections mentioned above do not have any impact on
it (Twomey, Jennings and Greene 2016).
There are certain circumstances which are provided through the legislation by the provisions of
s. 129, which states that a deed or any such document might be executed through the company
even without using the common seal. The circumstance in which the documents are executed
even without the common seal, is when the document is properly signed by at least two directors,
one being the director and the other one being the company secretary. As per s. 127(2), this
document is considered to be executed through the company, in which the common seal has been
attached with the following document which is witnessed as according to subsection 1. It is made
clear by the provisions under s. 127(4) that no restriction is present in regards to how the
execution of the document might be done by the company (Chen, Ramsay and Welsh 2016).
When any individual and a company are in a contract, it has been provided the power of
assuming that the Agent who is representing the company in the contract has acted according to
the regulations as well as internal rules which are present in the organization, according to the
case of Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327 (Miller 2015)

8BUSINESS LAW
The court stated in regards to the dissimilarity among the documents which were executed by s.
127, and also the contract which made by the agent on the behalf of the company by s. 126, as
per the case of In Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd v Paley Properties Pty Ltd [2014]
SASCFC 103. The court stated that the contract was made under the provisions of s. 127 as there
was only the signature of the director present but the signature of the second person was missing.
It was also stated that when the company gets into a contract by s. 126 the other party in the
contract must not have confidence on the expectations on s. 129.
Application
In the given case it has been stated that Rick was involved in a transaction of renting property
with Watel Pty Ltd. Only Rick had signed the transaction, and according to the provisions under
s. 127(1) that the documents required to be signed by two directors, that is the directors and the
company secretary but in this case only Rick had signed the deal. The documents are considered
to be executed through the company and its common seal is attached to documents and is
discussed in the subsection 1. If under s. 127 the documents are unable to be executed then the
party does not have the power of having the confidence on the expectations by the s. 129, as per
the case of Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd v Paley Properties Pty Ltd. Meanwhile, no such
provisions are mentioned in the law which would block Rick from getting into a contract with
the Watel Pty Ltd. The provisions also remain unaffected through which an individual could get
into a contract representing the company.

9BUSINESS LAW
It has been stated in the s. 126 of the corporation act, that a person has the right to exercise the
power of the company to vary, discharge, rectify or make the contract with who is performing in
accordance with the expressed or implied authority, which is been given by the company. Such
powers do not require the common seal of the company to be put to use. Therefore, according to
this section there is a valid contract which is formed between Rick and the company under the
provisions under s. 126, as he was the agent representing the company. If any person is involved
in a transaction with the company, then he has the right to find out whether or not all the rules
and regulations are being followed, as per Royal British Bank v Turquand. In this scenario, it is
said that this company Watel Pty Ltd is present is in a valid contract according to the provisions
under s. 126 of corporation act.
Conclusion
Therefore, the transaction which took place between The Watel Pty Ltd and Rick is said to be
binding lawfully upon the company, under the provisions of the s. 126. Even if it was not
performed as according to the provisions of s. 127.

10BUSINESS LAW
References
ASIC v Healey [2011] FCA 717
ASIC v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited [2016]
FCA 42
AWA Ltd v Daniels t/a Deloitte Haskins & Sells & Ors (1992) 10 ACLC 933; (1992) 7 ACSR
759
Chen, V., Ramsay, I. and Welsh, M., 2016. Corporate law reform in Australia: An analysis of the
influence of ownership structures and corporate failure.
Coffee Jr, J.C., Sale, H. and Henderson, M.T., 2015. Securities regulation: Cases and materials.
Du Plessis, J.J., 2017. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the
Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and Germany. Taylor & Francis.
Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd v Paley Properties Pty Ltd [2014] SASCFC 103
Mann, R.A. and Roberts, B.S., 2015. Business law and the regulation of business. Nelson
Education.
Miller, R.L., 2015. Business Law Today, Standard: Text & Summarized Cases. Nelson
Education.
Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327

11BUSINESS LAW
Twomey, D.P., Jennings, M.M. and Greene, S.M., 2016. Anderson's Business Law and the Legal
Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Nelson Education.