Group Case Study Report: Business and Corporate Law - HI6027, T2 2019

This case study analyzes two business law scenarios, focusing on contract and corporate law principles. The first part examines an advertisement offer by SOO Burgers, exploring offer, acceptance, and revocation in contract law, referencing cases like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Dickinson v Dodds. The second part delves into corporate law, specifically addressing the powers of a company under the Corporations Act 2001, including the validity of a loan taken by a company representative and the application of the doctrine of indoor management, citing relevant sections of the Act and cases like Royal British Bank v Turguand. The analysis provides legal arguments and conclusions for each scenario, supported by case law and relevant legislation.

Business and Corporate Law
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

Part A (1)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1893]
• advertisement with terms
for reward is binding offer
for anyone to accept
• In case advertisement of
SOO burger it would be
binding offer for anyone to
accept

Part A (1)
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
• advertisements published
in newspapers or hoardings
or anyother place
considered as invitation to
offer
• treating advertisement an
invitation to treat SOO is
not bound by terms of
advertisement

Part A (1)
Spencer's Pictures Ltd v
Cosens [1918]
• a contract will form only
when offer is accepted
verbally or in written.
• the offer became valid
when Mickey and Brett
came to presented golden
tickets.

Part A (1)
Payne v Cave (1789)
• An offer can be withdrawn
by revocation before the
offer had been accepted
• the offer was revoked by
SOO Burgers however it
was not before Brett
accepted offer
• information was
broadcasted before
Mickey claimed prize
Byrne v Van Tienhoven & Co [1880]
• revocation of offer required
communicated by offerer to offeree
in any direct or indirect way before
the acceptance
• the information of the revocation
was not informed to Brett
Dickinson v Dodds [1876]
• there is no requirement that
the revocation of the offer is to
be communicated by the
offeror to the offeree
personally.
• Brett heard nurses discussing
about the revocation of the
offer

Part A (1)
• SOO Burgers are bound
under contract law with
Brett
• SOO Burgers are not bound
under the contract law with
Mickey

Section 125, Corporations Act
2001
• any company has a constitution
of its own, any restriction or
provision may be contained for
the exercise of the powers of of
the company.
• The loan for eucalyptus
plantation for the
refurbishment of the two of the
clothing shops would not be
making any such difference
Part B (1)

Part B (1)
Section 126 Corporations Act 2001
• the power of a company to be
making verifying ratify for
discharging any contract might be
seen as being exercised by any
individual who has been acting
with the express or implied
authority of the company on
behalf of the company.
• Sarah taking loan for the
company’s behalf would be
ratified under this section

Part B (1)
doctrine of indoor management
• the outsiders without any kind of
authority consideration meaning all
internal affairs of the company would
be completed with the internal rules
set up by the company.
• Royal British Bank v Turguand [1856]

Part B (1)
• bank could be able to recover the loan
amount.
• no different outcomes if the loan was
taken for the refurbishment of two of the
clothing stores of the company.
• would not have any different outcome if
the loan officer of the bank had
knowledge about Sarah's fallout with the
board.

Reference
• Byrne v Van Tienhoven & Co.
[1880]
• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1893]
• Corporations Act 2001
• Dickinson v Dodds [1876]
• Partridge v Crittenden [1968]
• Payne v Cave [1789]
• Royal British Bank v Turguand
[1856]
• Spencer’s Pictures Ltd v Cosens
[1918]

THANK YOU