Company Law

Mary McDonald, an 86-year-old woman, was frequently complaining about the high cost of maintenance of her house and high property taxes. She decided to cancel her fire insurance to reduce expenses. Mary’s daughter was aware of her mother’s concern about the property, and she took Mary to the lawyer’s office to sign some papers that would protect her mother. When Mary came to the lawyer’s office, she was advised that the paper she was going to sign was the deed to the property. Mary signed a document. Later on, when the municipal tax bill arrived, Mary McDonald was really surprised to see that the property was in her daughter’s name.

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.

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.

Mercedes Connolly and her husband purchased airline tickets and a tour package for a tour to South Africa from Judy Samuelson, a travel agent doing business as International Tours of Manhattan. Samuelson sold tickets for a variety of airline companies and tour operators, including African Adventurers, which was the tour operator for the Connollys’ tour. Mercedes and injured her left ankle and foot. She sued Samuelson for damages. Is Samuelson liable?

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

There is a literal conflict between the state and the federal measures, so that it is impossible to follow both simultaneously.

1. Identify the ethical, strategic, operational, and financial issues in this scenario and list them in priority order from most to least critical.

Hanrahan, P., Ramsay, I. & Stapledon, G. (2010), Commercial Applications of Company Law 10th ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH

Robert Briggs and his wife purchased a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. They made a down payment and borrowed the balance on a 30-year mortgage. Six years later, when Mr. and Mrs. Briggs were behind on their mortgage payments, they entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months’ arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Sackett were sisters. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later, Robert Briggs filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation

X is the promoter of X Pty Ltd, a company to which X proposes to sell some land for

In addition (Chen-Wishart n.d), notes that a company is categorized as a legal personal and operates as distinct from its shareholders. Based on these statements, Betty had not right to act on behalf of Bechdo Pty Ltd and Bechdo has the capacity to sue Betty for acting contrary to the company constitution. Based on the case study, Betty had breach the contract which existed between her and the company laws. If an act carried is outside the objects for which the company was founded to as contained in the company’s memorandum of association which is this case is the company’s constitution, then the acts are deemed to be ultra vires. In other words, the acts are beyond the capacity of the organization. In addition, contracts which are deemed ultra vires are categorized as void (Palmiter 2009, p.59). This can be referenced to Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Richie 1875. The doctrine of ultra vires which have deemed the contracts between Bechdo Pty Ltd and BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and Con Development Ltd as void has been applied with the aim of protecting the interests of lenders and company shareholders. As noted by Chen-Wishart (n.d), ultra vires is necessary in protecting the interest of its shareholders who depend on objective clause of the constitution to limit the acts in which their money may be used.

Smith should have disclosed his share information with the board of directors and voted in favor of Johnsons Skyhooks Limited. Being a board of director of a competing company, he failed to execute his duty in good faith with best interest of the corporation. According to the act, he should be fined up to 5000$ and can go to jail for at least six months.

Salomon v Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22 - when Aron Salomon sold his business to Salomon and Co. Ltd. Company, where he was still the major shareholder and some of his family was also a member. He also received a debenture as part of the payment for a secured term. But when the company has gone into liquidation during the 1890’s some argued that his

Mrs. Turner has decided to start her own business running a private day nursery. It is

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.