.

Business Law Assignment Answers

Hiring Business Law Assignment Help Professional at Affordable Price

Case 1

Issue

Lance who is a partner in Herbal products business bought a ute from Mighty Motors for $25,000 on behalf of the partnership. However, three partners agreed not to spend more than $20,000 to buy a ute but Lynton, the car seller is unaware that Lance is crossing the buying limit. In this case, the issue is whether the partnership is bound by the contract and liability can be imposed by Lynton on all the partners due to the action of Lance? Whether the partnership can take legal action against Lance?

Rule

The relationship between two or more parties constructed legally to run a business for the purpose of generating revenue is called partnership. According to the Partnership act 1982 (Austilli, 2018), the legal relationship established between two or more parties who wish to work together with a view of making a profit is termed as a partnership. The partnership acts are fortified by contract, equity, and agency law where the agreement can be made either verbal or written or implied by conduct. Every partner is governed by fiduciary duty in a partnership which means they must act on good faith in the best interest of the partnership. Moreover, based on the Agency Act of partnership each partner is the agent for every other partner. The term ‘Authority” is the scope of an agent’s power defined by law. Hence, according to partnership act 1891 (SA) S5(1), every partner in a partnership is accountable for the actions of other partners as they considered to be their agent. Lavery v. Nelson (1984) NSW Conv R 55-169 is an example of a good case that clearly explains this issue. In this case, the court gave a decision that the principal (vendor) would be bound and fall within the implied actual authority of the agent.

Application

In this case, Lance has breached his duty as an agent of the partnership because he has exceeded the authority by purchasing ute for $25,000 through partnership had an agreement not to spend more than $20,000 to buy a ute. Previously, the partners agreed to spend $20,000 to buy a ute. Hence, Lance didn’t act in the good faith for the best interest of the business and dishonored his duties. In this situation, other partners can sue him for the damages. Apparently, Lynton was aware of the business, but he was unknown about the decision of the partnership about their agreement not to exceed $20,000. Therefore, Lynton can bind the partnership to pay off his debt. Moreover, the partnership is bound by the actions of the partners which are taken within the scope of the business.

Conclusion

Since Lance didn’t work in the good faith for the best interest of the partnership, he has breached his obligations as an agent. Hence, other partners have a legal remedy to sue him for the damages and can claim for extra money spent to buy a ute. On the other hand, the entire partnership is liable to pay the debt to Lynton.

Geometry

Case 2

Issue

In this case, a business producing moisturizer made an advertisement that it will reduce the effects of aging which is false. The issue is whether the consumers have a legal remedy for misrepresentation and false advertising? Further, in another case Lance the partner of a company made Saqalim purchase a ute who has little knowledge of English. Therefore, he entered into a contract to finance the company to buy a ute. The issue here is whether a contract is voidable for unconscionable conduct?

Rule


Business Law Assignment Help By Online Tutoring and Guided Sessions at assignmenthippo.com


According to Australian consumer and competition law, consumers' rights are protected against unfair trade practices by the supplier of goods and services. The legislation against consumer and competitive act prohibits misleading or false conduct in trade or commerce and ban on unconscionable conduct provided in section 18 of this Act. Furthermore, section 29 of this act stated that a misleading representation is a statement that could mislead a consumer on the basis of false presentation of the quality, value, grade, standard, model or style of goods or services. In Thompson v. Riley McKay Pty Ltd (No. 3) (1980) 43 FLR 293 company made false advertisement that a product is made of ‘wrought iron’ in fact made of plastic and steel. Therefore, this conduct trespassed S.29 (1) (a), ACL.

Similarly, the contract is defined by Trietel in his work The Law of Contract (9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1995) as an agreement between parties giving rise to obligations that are enforced and recognized legally. Since the above case is unconscionable conduct, Saqlaim has a legal remedy to get out of the contract. The common law principle was outlined by the case Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 which explains unconscionable conduct as an irrational agreement where one party to a contract is being forced by other stronger party in a position of power resulting unreasonable in favor to the stronger party.

Application

In the above case, misleading representation was practiced by Xiaojing making false advertising that the moisturizer will slow the effects of aging which was untrue. Section 29 of the Consumer and Competition Act provides a legal remedy to consumers against false presentation and false advertising.

On the other hand, Lance took advantage of Saqlaim who has weak English communication and influenced him to purchase a ute. Thus, unconscionable conduct occurred as Saqlaim lack proper explanation of ute and contract and doesn’t speak English well. Since he was unaware of the terms of the contract, he can get rid of the obligations bound by the contract.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis consumers can have a legal remedy and can sue for the damages against the false representation of goods or services under section 29 as the product was advertised in a wrong way which misleads the consumers. Similarly, Saqlaim can be freed from the obligations of the contact to finance company based on the principle of unconscionable conduct. He will not be bound by the contract as it was carried out without explaining the terms of the contract clearly and properly.

Case 3

Issue

The case is about a Uni student Flexi who didn’t get an extra $100 as promised by his employer for the work done on Sunday. Being happy with the work performed Xaiojing promised to pay him $100 extra which was not paid. The issue of whether there is any legal remedy that Flexi can claim an extra $100?

Rule

The contract is a legal binding between the parties who can legally enforce the terms of contracts. To form a valid contract, it must be supported by consideration or be a formal contract. Consideration is the promise of one party to others in the exchange for something done i.e. value for value. The terms “promisor” and “promise” describe the parties to a contract where consideration is present. The promiser accomplishes the consideration and promisee is the inheritor of the consideration. Moreover, there are several rules regarding consideration. Most importantly, consideration can be present or future but not past. It is not possible to rely on an act or promise which was already performed. Roscorla v. Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 illustrates this case where Roscorla sue Thomas as the horse was found vicious. When she bought the horse, Thomas promised that the horse was sound and free from vice. The court further gave the decision that there was no breach of contract as the contract was already completed when the promise was made, and it was past consideration. Therefore, in general, consideration can be present or future but it was past consideration that doesn’t support valid contracts. 

Application

In the above case, Xiaojing is an employer of Flexi. Xiaojing was impressed by his work and promised him to pay $100 extra for the work he had done on Sunday. However, Xiaojing didn’t pay him an extra $100 as promised. In this situation, consideration was made in the past. The general rule suggests that a valid contract cannot be supported by past consideration. It should be either present or future consideration.

Conclusion

It is concluded that Flexi has no legal right to claim an extra $100 as the contract can not be supported by past consideration. However, Xiaojing has moral obligations to pay him as promised.

References

Austlii. (2018) Partnership Act 1892. [Online] Austlii. Available at: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pa1892154/ [Accessed 23rd November 2018].

Australian consumer and competition law

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v. Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 44

Lavery v, Nelson (1984) NSW Conv R55-!69

Partners Act 1891 (SA) S5(1)

Roscorla v. Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234

Thompson v. Riley McKay Pty Ltd (No. 3) (1980) 43 FLR 293

9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1995

.