Answer To: LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANISATIONS: LAWS641 Semester One 2018 ASSIGNMENT: Total marks for this assignment...
Sarah answered on Mar 09 2020
1
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW SCENARIO ANALYSIS
2
BUSINESS LAW SCENARIO ANALYSIS
Assignment Title
Student Name
Course Name
Instructor Name
Date
Question 1
In this case, it is the court who can decide which friends would be liable for the compensation that is Michael or Leonora or Gerry.
They are not bound by the 1908 Partnership Act because the partnership is a legal entity and defines the relationship between partners and binds people operating the business together with the notion of sharing profit. Sharing gross profit will not account for partnership (Barrett & McDermott, 2014). In the given case, profits are used to pay for the services rendered by the person which does not make them a partner. Similarly, a partnership firm is liable for the wrongful acts that are performed during the normal course of business and all partners are jointly liable for the partnership firm’s liabilities.
It would be appropriate to take the case of Polkinghorne v Holland where it was ruled out that if the partnership firm is found of involving in the wrongful act, then all the partners are held for same liability (Jade, n.d.).
As per Section 5(b) of Partnership Act, the net profit should be shared by all the partners who are present in this case that is sharing of net profit equally by all the three friends. But considering the Partnership Act Section 4(1) it was clear that Michael and Gerry were mainly contributing to the airplane repairing business (New Zealand Legislation, n.d.). In this case, Leonora was being paid only for the accounting tasks performed by this partner.
From the analysis of the case scenario Partnership Section 5(c)(ii) Leonora will not be qualified to become the partner initially (New Zealand Legislation, n.d.). Leonora intended to resell Korean planes through the Michael business which is not related to the repairing which qualified Leonora to become a partner. It leads to the formation of the new partner. Leonora is qualified to become a partner when he began to participate actively in the business, and it meets the Partnership Section 4(1) (New Zealand Legislation, n.d.).
In this case, the current business situation meets the normal business operations that are repairing and selling the airplanes. The main issue is that Michael repaired the airplane that damaged the equipment claimed by the Geek Corporation. From the Partnership Section 13, it is clear that the damage suffered by Geek Corporation is held liable by the Partnership Act. The main reason for the firm to be liable because it was caused by the repair done by Michael and them these things took place under the normal business condition (Barrett & McDermott, 2014). As per the partnership act if any damage is caused by the partnership firm in the normal due course of business, then the firm will be held liable for the damage.
From the analysis, it is clear that all three partners Michael, Leonora, and Gerry are meeting all the requirements of the Partnership Act of 1908 and they are bound by all the legal attributes of the partnership (New Zealand Legislation, n.d.). Therefore, the final verdict would hold all the three partners Michael, Leonora, and Gerry liable for the compensation of $300,000. As per Partnership Act, Section 15 the entire partnership firm and all the partners will be held liable, and it is in line with the case of Polkinghorne v Holland (Barrett & McDermott, 2014).
Question 2
As per the company act, the corporation is a separate entity and different from the individual owners of the company and they are given all the rights to sue and be sued and to be held liable according to Companies Act 1993 section 15 (New Zealand Legislation, n.d.). As per the Section 97(1) stated that unless there is specifically stated that they are not having unlimited liability the shareholders of the company will have limited liability.
In this case, the case law of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd will be more relevant. It is chosen from the Great Britain case because it is used to indicate that corporation is a separate entity. Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] A.C. 22 (House of Lords) indicates that Salomon Corporation is separate from the Salomon (Law Teacher, n.d.).
As per the New Zealand corporation Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Limited [1961] NZLR 325 where the law ruled out that Lee Air Farming Limited is separate from Lee (ATO, n.d.).
After the incorporation of the company, both company and the owners are separate from each other as per the Companies Act under Section 15...