just need answers of these questions from question no. 2 to 6. no need to answer question no. 1.

UNIT CODE: HA3021
UNIT NAME: CORPORATIONS LAW
ASSIGNMENT: TUTORIAL QUESTIONS ASSIGNMENT (INDIVIDUAL)
Table of Contents
Question 2: Indoor Management Rule and its Relation to Company entering into Contract    3
Question 3: Advice to Kelly and Jordan    4
Question 4: Jacqui and Bruce    4
Question 5: Nature of Fiduciary Duties Owed by a Director    6
Question 6: Roles of a Receiver and Differences from Administrator or Liquidator    7
Bibliography    9
Question 2: Indoor Management Rule and its Relation to Company entering into Contract
Indoor management doctrine is also known as Turquand’s rule. It is hundred and fifty years old and originated in the context of constructive notice doctrine. The role of the latter is to protect the company from outside attackers. The former aims at protecting outsiders from the company. The constructive notice rule is confined to the position of the company externally[footnoteRef:1]. There is no notice about the process of internally handling and operating the company by its officers. If there is consistency in the contract then the person undergoing the contract will not be affected by prejudices and irregularities. [1: Iman Asadi, Norhayati Mahyuddin and Payam Shafigh, "A Review On Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) And Energy Consumption In Building Based On Occupant Behaviour" (2017) 35(11/12) Facilities]
This doctrine actually lays down that the persons dealing with a particular company after having satisfied themselves that the transaction that has been proposed is not inconsistent by nature are not obliged to inquire about any internal proceedings of the company. It is assumed that the memorandums and articles have been well viewed by the officers and it is not the responsibility of outsiders to supervise the company’s internal regulations. The indoor management is taken to be legally enforceable by the Australian government in order to make it applicable. The company can invoke a constructive notice and it never operates against the company. The person dealing with the company can invoke indoor management. Australian Courts have further broadened the scope of indoor management.
The object is the protection of the third party undergoing transactions with the company. The third party is also unaware of the complex internal management of the company. In the Monark Enterprises versus Kishan Tulpule case, the validity of the transaction was not impacted. No resolution of entering into the transaction was passed by the board belonging to the company[footnoteRef:2]. The company had entered and the transaction was adopted and implemented throughout after receipt of considerations in YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2: Naixia Mou et al, "Association Rule Mining Method Based On The Similarity Metric Of Tuple-Relation In Indoor Environment" (2020) 8 IEEE Access]
There are certain exceptions in this regard. The outsider cannot claim relief on the ground of this doctrine if they are aware of irregularities, aware of any forgery or suspicion, if the company is prone to act outside apparent authority. The rule protects the interest of the third party, which is responsible for transactions with the company and this happens in good faith. The company is also indebted to the third party. Now, it can be assumed that a person, who is entering into a contract with a company, knows the company properly and its proceedings through the documents.
Question 3: Advice to Kelly and Jordan
The controlling owners for the most part have the authority to fire a shareholder from the position they are in. In this case, Kelly and Jordan having 70% of the share control will be able to remove Taj from the possession of the senior tester even if he has 20% of the share hold in the company. The needs to be discussed in board meetings and the vote of the board of directors are required to impose the decision. The process needs to be utilised and understood in order to avoid any potential litigation against them. Kelly and Jordan must abide by the law and flow all the same terms, which are followed for a normal employee.
Taj must be given notice before he is expelled from the position. Yet, Taj still holds the share of the company and it must be treated as any other shareholder in the company during the meetings. There is inadequate straightforwardness and responsibility corresponding to the utilisation of prohibiting orders,...