Business And Corporations Law: Companies Assessment Answer

Application

The form of agreement between Jane and Jack is considered lawful if the parties could have signed some legal agreements based on the law (Kobel, KëLlezi & Kilpatrick, 2015, p. 8). In this case, if the parties did not sign some agreements in form of an official document, then the agreement was based on the oral terms, which must have some supportive evidence. In case where there would be a disagreement, the parties need to provide an agreed document or evidence to indicate their terms and condition to be used as a judgment base to the solution (Datt, 2015, p. 28).

Conclusion

It can be noted that the parties could have agreed to act independently though their own agreements.

b) Jane offers to sell Jack her Lotus Super 7 sports car for $25 000. The market

Value for this type of vehicle in good condition is around $25 000. Jack

Accepts. (2.5 MARKS)

Issue

According to the information, the parties might have agreed in their own terms to transact though their own mean. According to the business laws, the value of the materials or goods often depreciate but here the value of the car is at the original value (Gamertsfelder, 2015, p. 33). This shows that Jack was purchasing the car at a loss. The case is beyond reasonable ground that the car was sold at a price that it was not meant to be sold at. The parties in this case must have had their own terms and conditions pertaining the value of the goods (Poston, Ennings & Zeno, 2015, p. 34). It is expected that because the car is not a new one, the price of the car was half the original price (Clark, Stuyck & Terryn, 2015, p. 28). There was no official document to show the transactions between the two parties. It can be concluded that the car must have been bought under their terms and conditions. The car is assumed to be bought under the former terms of relations before this transaction, but that is not even reasonable enough because basing on the knowledge of business and its laws, the car value must depreciate on the basis of it being a second and good.

Rules

Motors are often liabilities and even one buys them, the expected value that was bought at, must reduce (Kobel, KëLlezi & Kilpatrick, 2015, p. 32). Nevertheless, if one wants to buy a car or any other good, the person must consult to get the right information concerning the values of the prices, it can therefore be concluded that Jack did not perform some research concerning the price of Jane’s car. It is therefore considered to his fault because it is expected that he knew the right price of the car when it was bought.

Application

As if that was not enough, the owner of the car needed to be considerate because according to the laws of business, there is need to have the faith or trustworthiness during the transactions  and sell their goods at the market price unless if the transactions are based on the earlier business terms (Poston,  Ennings & Zeno, 2015, p. 22). It is based on the market price that one needs to buy or sell something; however, some individuals who are not willing to follow the laws of business often want to steal from the customers. It is also acceptable if the client in this case who is Jack accepted the price and bought it at that. That is also based on the agreement terms (Gamertsfelder, 2015, p. 10). This is a wrong impression of how many business individuals wants to benefit from the clients through the sales that they make. It is recommended that if Jack does not agree with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and has the legal transactions, can still claim his money through taking Jane to court. It is not a must that one has to understand the business knowledge but that one tries to work and find more on the application part of the business information.

Conclusion

According to the law, it is expected that one needs to understand the terms and conditions of the transaction before engaging in the transactions. In making the business transactions, it is important that both parties agree at a certain price and have a better price that is reasonable to the market price. This case shows how people make wrong transaction in the business without involving the business laws and regulations.

c) Jane offers to sell Jack her Lotus Super 7 sports car for $2500. The market

Value for this type of vehicle in good condition is around $25 000. Jack

Accepts. (5 MARKS)

Issue

There is no enforceable agreement between the parties. In this case, Jane has gone at a loss for selling the car at a very cheap price (Kobel, KëLlezi & Kilpatrick 2015). The value of the car is calculated based on the buying price and the duration that have passed since the good was bought. It is not reasonable enough to sell the car at such a very low price. It is important also to consider the value of the market price of the same car in the same condition. Transactions are making to be binding agreement that both the parties are able to agree at.

In this case, Jane must have no knowledge of the business laws and therefore her mistake not to apply the laws costs her through the wrong pricing price of her car (Hannigan, 2009, p. 10). According to the business, laws the practice have to be formal and no other relational basis need to be involved. It is recommended that if Jane does not agree with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and has the legal transactions, can still claim more money through taking Jack to court. It is not therefore, a must that one necessities to comprehend the business information but it is significant that one attempts to follow the right laws and regulations.

Rules

It is according to the laws of business that one must agree to indulge in the transactions in accordance with set laws and per prices set on the commodity (Nagel, 2000, p. 18). It is important that one have to research and find out ion the prices of things before finally purchasing the goods. The value of business laws and information is therefore shown to be important in controlling the prices of the commodities. A mutual transaction has to be made between the seller and the buyer to ensure that both benefit from the process of transactions. In this case the parties had no knowledge of business thus they indulged in the wrong form of transaction where there must have lacked a mutual understanding between the parties (Charlesworth, Morse, Marshall & Morris, 1987, p. 23).

Application

Therefore, it was not a mutual contract that the parties made and the most important thing was that Jane agreed sell the car as requested by the client. One party is not depicted to benefit from the practice and therefore it is not based on the competency of the parties to have the capacity to obliquely adhere to the set agreements. Considerately, the state to of the care must also have contributed to the price level (Schulze, 2011, p. 45). It is not reasonable for Jack to buy the car at such a price if the liability would not be of help to him. Situation in the business law can force one to buy something or sell at a certain price to accomplish some other needs (Emerson, R. and Hardwicke, 1997, p. 67). It is advisable that one becomes considerate and during the selling and the purchase of goods to avoid wrong transactions.

Conclusion

Entirely, the basis of all the transaction is the business knowledge and one has to at least understand the forms of truncations or research about the market forces and perform transaction in the right way. Business individuals need to maintain the utmost good faith during the transaction and ensure that their actions reflect the laws of the business terms (Emerson, 2004, p. 18).

A shipbuilder had contracted to build a tanker for North Ocean Tankers. The

Contract was in US dollars and didn’t contain any provisions for currency fluctuations. Approximately halfway through construction of the ship, the United States devalued its currency by 10 per cent. As the shipbuilder stood to make a loss on the contract, it demanded that an extra US$3 million be paid or it would stop work. The buyer reluctantly agreed under protest to pay, as he already had a charter for the tanker and it was essential that it be delivered on time. The buyer didn’t commence action to recover the excess payment until some nine months after delivery. Will the buyer succeed in recovering the excess?

Issue

The buyer will succeed to recover the extra although the time for the recovery had passed. The buyer is allowed to perform the follow up at any time even after the delivery and claim the money back (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2015, p. 32). The use of business information in the marketing and selling of the goods is important because it states that the use of the legal agreements in the businesses is helpful in such cases where some disagreements have been raised. It is important that the buyer must note the value of the legal transactions made.

Rules

The legal documents are vital in making such claims because the evidence of the case is carried on the materials. It also must be considered that the buyer has to know that the time for the claim had passed and should also be fined for the late claim but be granted the justice. The condition under the period of delivery and the time of the claim must be noted before the solution is found. It must be known if the buyer was aware or not may be the buyer must have been under critical moment that obstructed him to perform the claim (Schulze, 2011, p. 21).

Application And Conclusion

The evidences to support the clam must be stated clearly in the case to provide the required information to make sound ruling. Since the buyer bought the goods at a protest, there is the legal provision that the money can be claimed back. Time of the agreement also need to be considered in the process of making such claims (Institute On Corporate & Securities Law In Hong Kong, Grandolfo, Park, Revell & Greene, 2015, p. 32).

Reference List

Charlesworth, J., Morse, G., Marshall, E. and Morris, R. (1987). Charlesworth's Company law. London: Stevens.

Clark, E. E., Stuyck, J., & Terryn, E. (2015). Commercial and economic law in Australia.

Datt, K. H. (2015). A critical evaluation of how aspects of the tax system in Australia are administered and their impact on corporations and directors.

Emerson, R. (2004). Business law. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron's.

Emerson, R. and Hardwicke, J. (1997). Business law. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron's Educational Series.

Gamertsfelder, L. (2015). Corporate information and the law.

Hannigan, B. (2009). Company law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, J., Hargovan, A., & Adams, M. A. (2015). Australian corporate law. Chatswood, LexisNexis Butterworths.

Institute On Corporate & Securities Law In Hong Kong, Grandolfo, J., Park, M., Revell, S., & Greene, E. F. (2015). Third annual Institute on corporate & securities law in Hong Kong, 2015.

Kobel, P., KëLlezi, P., & Kilpatrick, B. (2015). Antitrust in the groceries sector & liability issues in relation to corporate social responsibility. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=985152.

Lowry, J. and Dignam, A. (2006). Company law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGuinness, K. and McGuinness, K. (2007). Canadian business corporations law. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis.

Nagel, C. (2000). Business law. Johannesburg: Butterworths Publishers.

Palmer, D. E. (2015). Handbook of research on business ethics and corporate responsibilities.

Poston, R. J., Jennings, C. R., & Zeno, T. E. (2015). Global business fraud and the law: preventing and remedying fraud and corruption.

Schulze, R. (2011). Compensation of private losses. Munich: Sellier. european law Publishers.