Assessment: Case Studies
Length: 1500 words
1. Explain the historical foundations of the Australian legal system and the current sources of law.
2. Describe the essential elements required to create, manage and discharge a contract and the remedies available for breach of contract.
3. Explain the different ways in which a business may be carried and the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
4. Identify the reasons for choosing one business structure over another.
5. Explain the processes for incorporating, managing and winding up a company.
The case depicts a situation where Lance, a partner from an herbal product business has been found to have purchased an UTE from Mighty Motors Pty Ltd. The company or the organization is run in partnership where Lance is accompanied with other two proprietors of the organization. However, Lance was the representative who made the purchase of the car on behalf of the orgaznaition and his other two partners (Rhodes, 2016). Therefore, it is considered in this stature that the three proprietors functioning in partnership for the company has to be given equal importance. In this stature the issue that has been created is that there was an instruction to spend only 20,000 Dollars for the purchase of the car. In the present case, it has been found that Lance purchased the car at 25,000 Dollar. In addition to this, the car salesperson that is Lynton although knew about the partnership business but had no idea about the limit that has been instructed for the purchase of the care by the organization. Therefore, this is the area where the legal issue lie in the case.
Under the corporate law in the Australian legal system, there are certain boundaries that show the requirements of partnership business. Each of the partners should be aware of limitation that has been unanimously selected between the partners of the business. However, in case of any breach to the obedience of the limitations that has been selected unanimously, the person responsible for the breach is liable to be accused for the breach of the duty of obedience (Coffee Jr, Sale & Henderson, 2015). Hence, the person might also be sued for the paying of the excess amount that has been limited. Burwell Vs Hobby Lobby shows a similar kind of issue.
In case of the present case, there has been evolvement of a situation that shows that the person who is likely to show in obedience of the limit that has been unanimously selected by the partners in t he business that is a sum of 20,000 Dollars. This limit has been taken as the ultimate in case of buying the car from the market (Taghian, D’Souza & Polonsky, 2015). Therefore, as the limit has been breached by Lance, the person who made the contract for the purchase of the car. The case study states that there has been breach of this term as the car had been purchased at the rate of 25,000 Dollars. As opined by Murray (2017), the sales person of the car although being aware of the partnership or the business had no idea about the limit that was put on the price for the purchase of the car. Oracle Corp vs. Google has a similar case that has evidenced breach of corporate law. Hence, in this case, while applying the law to the situation the extra money that has been considered for the purchase of the car should be paid by Lance.
The case study has showed a case where one of the partners in the herbal business has committed the breach. Therefore, the other two partners of the herbal business are liable to sue Lance for the breach of the term of obedience that has been set unanimously for the purchase of the car. Hence, they can sue Lance for the payment of the extra amount that is 5000 Dollars.
The first situation in the case study states that Xiaojing who is utterly interested to sell her beauty products in the market has rolled an advertisement. in order to do so, Xiaojing has been found to be producing advertising flyer that states certain false statement on the effectiveness of the beauty product. The advertisement flyer states that the beauty product is liable to slow the effects of ageing for the user, which is a misleading statement (Setó-Pamies & Papaoikonomou, 2016). Hence, this is a breach of the law of business and the claimant might be advised to sue for the compensation for any threat after the purchase of the product by the consumers.
The second case states that Saqlaim is refugee and has weak understanding of English but has been chosen as the person to sell a car that has not been found useful by the pre-owners of the car. Therefore, the sale is established by verbal conversation with Saqlaim in English might be treated as a method unfair for the selling of the car to Saqlaim.
As assessed in the first case, the issue regarded by the law is regarding the production of the advertisement that is misleading to the consumers. The Australian corporate law states that framing such statements in the advertisements of a product that is vague and is not liable to state the actual functions of the products is considered as misleading advertisement, which falls under the consumer protection act of the Australian law. The case may be defined as such that in case of any kind of instances of advertising the produces promises that are indicative as a description of function of the product that is to be sold, which is the main cause of the purchase of the product by a consumer is also an act of misleading advertisement accusable by law
The second case shows a situation that causes a sale of a pre-owned product through verbal contract or agreement (Deegan & Shelly, 2014). However, the area that is accusable by law is to produce contract through verbal agreements in a language that is not the mother tongue of the victim can be a breach of the law of contract. In such cases, as stated by the contract law, a written contract is to be entered into where languages favorable to each of the party used to be used to write the agreement.
In case of the case of Saqlaim to be bound by the contract that has been got into by him with a finance company for the purchase of the car there are certain consideration by law. Saqlaim may not also be bound by the contract with the finance company. As indicated by Gullifer & Payne (2015), This is because the contract of purchasing the car from the herbal company partnership may not be well understandable.
In the other case, consumers are liable for remedy against the claims of the advertisement of the products. Xiaojing would be liable to compensate if any of the consumers claims for the product not fulfilling the requirements of the consumers. Interfoto pictures v stiletto visual programs shows similar case evidence where the case has gone in t he for of claimant
In the case of Xiaojing, she might have to pay compensation for the consumer as she has conducted an act breaching the consumer protection law (Dowling, 2014). In the other case, Saqlaim is not bound by the contract between him and the financial company as the purchase of the car may be an act to mislead him through putting up description of the product in a language in which the victim is weak at.
Xiaojing has committed an act that is accusable by law under the contract law. In this case, Xiaojing had promised Felix to pay him with 100 Dollar extra with the remuneration that he is liable to get for picking lavender (Hutchinson, Seamer & Chapple, 2015). Hence, this oral contract has been committed to Felix. In case of breach of the contract, Felix can sue Xiaojing for not paying the extra 100 Dollar.
According to the contract law, when an individual makes a promise to another to pay the one with any amount of money because of satisfaction through the work that he did for Xiaojing’s property (Shields et al. 2015). Hence, according to the legal principles Xiaojing might be charged for not complying with the promise to pay Felix with 100 Dollar extra. This is because; a legal contract is being entered into through such acts, which is identified as oral contract under Australian contract law.
While applying the law of breach of contract under the Australian contract law, it can be stated that Felix, who is the victim in the case can pursue Xiaojing for the breach of the oral contract (Erdiaw-Kwasie & Alam, 2016). The contract was created during the promise of paying 100 Dollar extra over his 25 Dollar wage as a result of outstanding service of Felix in Xiaojing’s garden. Here, Xiaojing is liable to provide Felix with the money as promised that is 100 Dollar. However, in such cases, law may also make the claimant liable to get a comparison for the breach of the oral contract under the contract law.
The act conducted by Xiaojing as considered as breach to the oral contract can be sued against by Felix for recovery of the promised about of 100 Dollars. Besides, the victim while claiming for the same may also claim for compensation because of his harassment for not receiving the promised amount of money by Xiaojing.