You must answer the two problem-type questions below, using the ILAC (Issues, Law, Application, Conclusion) format, a worked example of which is in the Resources folder.Pleasenote that the word limit...

1 answer below »
You must answer the two problem-type questions below, using the ILAC (Issues, Law, Application, Conclusion) format, a worked example of which is in the Resources folder.Pleasenote that the word limit of 2 000 words is atotal for both questions(ie, it is not 2 000 words for each question). This is afirm limit- work in excess of 2 000 words will notbe marked.I would however expect that students should be able to answer both questions in far less than 2 000 words.Your bibliography is not included in the word limit but in-text references are.**In this subject, assignments are marked on-line, using an adapted MS Word programme. You therefore MUST submit your assignment in Word format, NOT as a PDF document. If you submitin PDF it will not be able to be marked.**

Question 1 (10 marks)






Steve Jones is an entrepreneur with a variety of business interests. He learned of a gold deposit in Western Australia. Because he was anxious to exploit the opportunity, he flew to Perth and on 6 July and entered into a contract to buy a drilling machine from Thor Mining Machinery Ltd, to be used to drill a test shaft. The contract specified that the drill would be delivered, and payment of the $ 125 000 price would fall due, on 30 July. He signed the contract as follows:






Steve Jones, on behalf of WA Gold Exploration Ltd.






WA Gold Exploration Ltd was registered as a company by ASIC on 10 July, with Steve as 90% shareholder. He and the other shareholders met on 11 July, to elect a board of five directors. Steve himself was not elected to the board, because although he had originally discovered the opportunity, he had no experience in mining operations, and so did not want to be a director.






On 14 July, the board signed a contract with for a fleet of five ore trucks from Volvo Trucks (Australia) Ltd, costing a total of $ 500 000, to be delivered on 30 September. The board also established a sub-committee to determine the company’s technical needs, and on 25 July the board accepted the committee’s recommendation that the company buy a drill from United Mining Machinery Ltd for $ 100 000. The board also contacted Thor Mining Machinery Ltd and told it that it would not be taking delivery of the drill.






Unfortunately, in mid-September it became clear that the gold deposit was not as large as hoped, and the board ceased trading on the basis that the company had only $ 400 000 in assets and had accumulated $ 2 million in liabilities. The company is therefore unable to pay for the trucks.






Steve, who has personal assets of $ 1 million, has now been sued for breach of contract by both Thor Mining Machinery Ltd and Volvo Trucks (Australia) Ltd. Assume you are his legal advisor. Prepare advice for him citing full legal authority, as to what his legal position is.










Question 2 (10 marks)






Simon, George, Sara and Mary were all employed by different IT companies. However, they felt that they could do better if they went into business themselves. They pooled their available cash and drew up a partnership agreement, which stated that each partner had authority to enter into transactions on behalf of their firm, which they called Computer Solutions. The firm operates in Sydney and provides a service of storing data for customers. The agreement states that partners have authority to enter into contracts of up to $ 10 000, but that any contract for more than that must be approved unanimously by all partners.






George, Sara and Mary approach you for legal advice in relation to two transactions entered into by George, who had acted without referring back to the partners.






One was for a 50TB hard-drive, bought by Simon on behalf of Computer Solutions, from Sunstar Computer Hardware Ltd, costing $ 15 000.






The other was for a second-hand ute, costing $ 9 000, which Simon ordered for the firm from You Beaut Ute Ltd, on the basis that the partnership should branch into the freight business – an idea that the other partners had previously rejected.





**Please check that your assignment complies with the rules in the Style Guide before you hand it in.**
Answered Same DaySep 03, 2020LAW220Charles Sturt University

Answer To: You must answer the two problem-type questions below, using the ILAC (Issues, Law, Application,...

Abr Writing answered on Sep 07 2020
157 Votes
Law Assignment
2
Table of Contents
ANSWER 1.    3
ISSUES    3
LAW    3
APPLICATION    4
CONCLUSION    5
ANSWER 2.    6
ISSUES    6
LAW    6
APPLICATION    7
CONCLUSION    8
REFERENCES    9
ANSWER 1.
ISSUES
What is the legal position of Steve against Thor Mining Machinery Ltd. as well as against Volvo Trucks (Australia) Ltd.?
LAW
As stated under Section 119 of the Corporations Act (CA), at the
time when a company is registered, it comes into existence as a body corporate which means that since the time of its registration, the company will operate as a separate legal entity having perpetual succession, can own property in its own name, enter into contracts and possess the capacity to sue as well as be sued in the court of law. [Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22]
Furthermore, Section 124(1)(a) provides that a company registered under the Act has the powers of both a natural persona as well as a body corporate and also lists the powers vested with it (Keay, 2012) .
Implications of the fact that the company is a separate legal entity:
1. Considering a limited liability company, the liability of shareholders is limited only to the amount of shares unpaid by them. Apart from this, the liability of a company is that of its own and none of its shareholders.
2. A company in any case is not an agent of its shareholders. The Board of directors acts on behalf of the company.
3. The constitution of the company is responsible for determining the level of control that shareholders possess in a general meeting over the other directors (Mena, 2016).
Principle of corporate veil
This principle was introduced by the court to protect the rights of shareholders and other related people. This principle helps the court to lift the veil of separate legal entity and find out the real defaulters, so that no malpractices can be undertaken by the individual people under the name of the company (Hudson, 2017).
This can be ascertained from many famous cases such as Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935, Green v Bestobell Industries Ltd [1982] WAR 1 and many others.
Promoters and pre-incorporation contracts
A person or a group of persons who conceives the idea of forming a company and engages themselves in the legal and statutory proceedings to bring the company into operation are known as the promoters of the company.
Pre-incorporation contracts refer to those contracts that are entered into by the promoters even before the company came into existence.
· It is important to note here that under the common law, the promoter cannot be treated as an agent because at the time of contract, the principle was not in existence. For the same reason, the company once incorporated still is unable to ratify the contract (Tomasic, 2016).
· In such cases, the promoter is held personally liable for the contract he had entered into.
· Section 131(1) of the Act provides that after incorporating the company, it is left at the discretion of the company to whether or not ratify the contract within the time specified as per the contract or within a reasonable time.
· In case where either the company was not registered or the company after registration refused to adopt the contract, then the contract cannot bind the company. Thus, the promoter will be personally liable.
· Another situation where the company refuses to adopt the contract after its registration but has derived some benefit out of that contract, then in that case, the Court may order the company to provide the third party some remedy which it feels appropriate including a proportion of damages for which the promoter is liable (McLaughlin, 2018). There are other alternatives also present as per the case including transfer of property obtained by virtue of such contract or payment of amount to the third party by the company. [Section...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here