Business Law

Violet’s case is similar to the case Re Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 in which the court considered the creditor a partner of the business concerned given that the creditor (Delhasse) had the right to control the property, had all the rights a dormant business partner would be expected to have, and rights to share profits and liability to share in losses.

In the case between Michael Franz David Willms and Manisha Willms and Macdonald builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd, outlines a “breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation” (Willms v. MacDonald Builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd., 2016), and contains the application of the builder’s lien act. The plaintiffs had come to and agreement with the defendant to renovate their house. However the Plaintiffs argue that the conduct of the defendant led to the creation of many deficiencies, which ultimately led to the project not being completed to the level of satisfaction the plaintiffs desired. This in turn led to legal action.

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.

Suppose that Katherine, Brianna, and Paige have formed a limited partnership to operate a video arcade. Katherine is the general partner. She has contributed $2,000 and her time to get the operation running. Brianna and Paige, the limited partners, have each contributed $3,000. After one year of operation, the arcade has debts of $10,000, and the three partners decide to discontinue their business and the limited partnership. Brianna and Paige want their investment returned to them. Who should Katherine, who is winding up the business, pay first, Brianna and Paige, or the creditors? How much will Brianna and Paige receive? How about Katherine?

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.

1.  Able entered into an oral contract with Baker for the sale of Able 's car for $5,000. Later Baker breached that contract. Able wants to sue to enforce the contract. Under the Statute of Frauds, who is the "party to be charged" in this case?

Craig admitted to his breach of duty of care and settled a suit with the plaintiff Alex Johnson. Craig is the only one liable in this incident, not the ski resort or its employees. Both employees acted professionally and chose the best slope based on his skill level.

To prove the negligence of the Big Slope Resort, Ben and Jerry must prove five elements of negligence. First, they must prove the resort’s duty. In this instance, duty is clear as Ben and Jerry are business visitors for whom the premises should be reasonably safe. Second, breach of duty must be proven. The resort’s failure to inspect the lift for guests prior to the shutdown satisfies that requirement. Third, the breach of duty must have caused damages. Ben and Jerry suffered physical injuries as a result of being stranded. Fourth, the breach of duty must have been the proximate cause of the damages. In other words, the breach of duty must be closely linked with the resulting damages. For this case, the actions of the resort were the only cause for the injuries. There were no other factors separating the cause and effect. Finally, there must be damage or injury. Ben and Jerry suffered from frostbite and other injuries, which qualify for this final criteria of

Kyran Murphy felt that the Holiday Inn should be held accountable for her injuries because they were sustained in a Holiday Inn Inc. motel.  Murphy felt that the “defendant, its agents, and employees, so carelessly, recklessly, and negligently maintained the premise of the motel” that caused

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

A) If tom finalized the loan agreement before the partnership is formed, he is negotiating the agreement on behalf of him personal. According to Georgia law, an agreement becomes enforceable when there is a meeting of parties’ minds “at the same time, upon the same subject matter, and in the same sense.” Cox Broadcasting v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 250 Ga. 391, 297 S.E.2d 733, 737 (1982). The letter of intent before the partnership formation was not applied under I.R.C §721 to be an exchange of property and Tom would have to recognize a gain in exchange of partnership interest. Also, if he negotiated the letter of intent to get a loan for the partnership because of his experience in the real estate business, he is rendering a

I am Ivy from class SUD11, Sunderland of University. I write this memo to you in order to aid you comprehend my work easier.

When Haili and John registered a proprietary company or form a partnerships, there are some legal rules and regulations attached to each of the type. To face those rules and regulations appropriately, a proper consideration is required by the each party.They have to know that a proprietary company is a smaller form of a public company when a partnerships is a form of organization when two or more people gather and do a business together (Pearce 2015). Consideration from the party comes from the management of the company and the willingness to use their personal debts. When Haili and John wants to be a director of Sparkle Pty Ltd, they can form a partnerships or a proprietary company. A proprietary company is a small company under the Corporations act 2001 (Cth), thus a partnership is only bind under The Partnership Act 1985. If Haili and John wants to manage the organization and be liable for the debt that arise from the organization, they can form a partnerships. Therefore, a proprietary company is separate legal entity and the amount of each party are liable for only the number of shares they own on the company (Pearce 2015). There is another form of partnership called limited partnerships that the members can have limited liability but cannot manage on the partnership (Pearce 2015). According to Seago and Horvitz (1980), a partnerships may have a characteristics of minimum 2 or more members and each party is a liable party if the partnerships goes