George 218 Pty Ltd V Bank Of Queensland Ltd Essay

The core of business activity is to gain profit. As these profits are earned form ordinary business activities, the profits are categorised as ordinary income for the business. However, there are some cases and scenarios where the business activity may include courses of actions that are not usual for the business nature. Here, we tried to find the consistency of ordinary income and the proceeds from these unusual business decisions.

Cases referred to in judgments Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 577, [1982] QB 84, [1981] 3 WLR 565, CA; affg [1981] 1 All ER 923, [1982] QB 84, [1981] 2 WLR 554. Crabb v Arun DC [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1976] Ch 179, [1975] 3 WLR 847, CA. Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep 320, [1775-1802] All ER Rep 159, 101 ER 573. Dakin (H) & Co Ltd v Lee [1916] 1 KB 566, DC and CA. De la Bere v Pearson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 280, [1904-7] All ER Rep 755, CA. Harris v Watson (1791) Peake 102, [1775-1802] All ER Rep 493, 170 ER 94, NP. Hicks v Gregory (1849) 8 CB 378, 137 ER 556. Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176, CA. Mondel v Steel (1841) 8 M & W 858, [1835-42] All ER Rep 511, 151 ER 1288. New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 1015, [1975] AC 154, [1974] 2 WLR 865, PC. North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd, The Atlantic Baron [1978] 3 All ER 1170, [1979] QB 705, [1979] 3 WLR 419. Pao On v Lau Yiu [1979] 3 All ER 65, [1980] AC 614, [1979] 3 WLR 435, PC. Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295, 158 ER 121.

On January 20, 2006, Sucklal and Ella Louise Smith (“Smith”) purchased property located at 8511 Autumn Grain Gate, Laurel, Maryland 20723 (“the Property”). The deed was recorded on January 25, 2006. Sucklal and Smith held the property as tenants in common. Sucklal and Smith financed the purchase of the property, in part, with a loan in exchange for a note in the amount of $530,100.00, secured by a lien on the property. Freemont Investment & Loan was the originating lender for the mortgage. Through a series of conveyances, the note transferred through Avelo Mortgage and MTGLQ Investors, LP, and the note is currently held by Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (“GSMC”). Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”) services the loan on behalf of GSMC.

In Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio 1, an elderly couple (Mr. and Mrs. Amadio) migrated to Australia forty year ago, without formal education and without a mastery of English, were persuaded by their son, Vincenzo to guarantee and mortgage to the bank a property they owned as security for the overdraft of their son’s company to the bank. They were misled into thinking that the liability was limited to $50000 and for half a year. When their son’s company failed, the bank tried to exercise power of sale under mortgage. The liability eventually turned out to be significantly higher because the guarantee was a continuing “all monies” guarantee which was not limited in time. The couple claimed that they would not have entered into the contract if they had known about the dire financial position of their son’s company. Furthermore, the bank did not ask them to seek legal advice prior to the signing of the contract. The majority of the High Court held that the mortgage ought to be set aside due to unconscionable conduct on the part of the bank.

The contract entered between Bruce Bickham and Washington Bank & Trust Company’s representative was a bilateral contract. “The relationship of the litigants is governed by bilateral contracts. The first such contract is represented by the oral agreement struck between Mr. Bickham and the Bank on January 23, 1974”( Bickham v. Washington Bank 1987) The agreement that was entered between Mr. Bickham and G.S. Adams, Jr., vice president of Washington Bank & Trust was if Mr. Bickham would do his personal and business banking with the bank Mr. Bickham would be receive loans at 7.5 percent rate payable over 10 years. As a result of this over the next two years the bank made several loans to Mr. Bickham with an interest rate of 7.5 percent.

The defendant Roffey Bros in September 1985 had contracted with Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats in London. There was a penalty cost for late completion according to the contract. As the main contractor, the defendant subcontracted necessary carpentry work to the plaintiff Mr Lester Williams for an agreed price of £20,000. The defendant had made interim payments of £16,200 by 9 April 1989 when the plaintiff completed the carpentry work for nine flats. However, the agreed price was under-quoted and was too low for the plaintiff to operate satisfactorily and at a profit. They then got into financial difficulty by the end of March 1986. Due to the reasons that the defendant worried lest the plaintiff did

Lord Toulson mentioned the Judicature Act 1873 in the case of AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors , and what ensued from it. The case deals with the applicable principles of causation in the case of a breach in trust. It held that a “but for” was application in such circumstances for equitable compensation. The case deals with a standard re-mortgage of a residential property. It starts when Mr and Mrs Sondhi applied to AIB group for a loan of £3.3m. Noting that they already had a mortgage with Barclays, their intention was to redeem it using AIB’s loan. Unfortunately, the solicitors at Mark Redler & Co negligently “mistook a redemption figure from Barclays as relating to the whole of their charge” it resulted as the solicitors underpaid Barclays by £309,000. The issue was that Barclays’ charge remained in place and the loan from AIB was secured only by a “second charge over the property” . Once the property was sold, there was a significant shortfall of some £2.5m. Lord Toulson also added in the case “where a trust is part of the machinery for the performance of a contract, that fact will be relevant in considering what loss has been suffered by reason of a breach of the trust.”

The Classification between an independent contractor and employee has raised a number of issues throughout the past 50 years. Failing to create an effective formality to be applied by the courts to any particular case, it has lead to commercial uncertainty through Australia. This essay will analysis Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 decision regarding the high court process in distinguishing between whether there was an relationship between the employer of employer/employee or employer/independent contractor.

* The court have to decide whether the parties were contractually bound by the sale note(which has been

An accord is reached when both parties to a contract agree to accept performance that is different from the original agreement after a breach of contract has occurred. Elements of a successful accord include the following:

In contrast to the facts of Sterling, in Simmons the plaintiff offered to buy the defendant 's property where both parties signed deposit slips indicating all of the essential terms of the sale of the defendant’s property. Simmons, 31 Cal. Rptr. at 201-02. After the plaintiff secured an escrow account, the defendant refused to sale the property. Id. at 202. The defendant contended that the deposit slip was not binding because the plaintiff’s new loan terms were "incomplete, indefinite and uncertain." Id. at 205. The court found that the essential terms had been listed on the deposit slip and, "nothing was left for future agreement.” Id. at 206.

B’s equitable interest is generated from her contribution to the purchase price of Y through the creation of a trust in the property. Such an interest was previously classified in the Land Registration Act 1995 as a ‘minor interest’, and ought to be registered in the proprietorship register of Y’s title as restriction on the proprietorship register, in accordance with s. 40 – 47 of the Land Registration Act 2002 to facilitate overreaching.

In the case of the Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Lord Phillips stated “I think personally I would have been quite in favour of the OFT looking into bank charges, if I had complete freedom to decide.... but the statute said it was not within their terms of reference”

The bank guarantees are broadly divided into two categories; Financial Guarantees and performance guarantees. A guarantee which is issued in lieu of monetary consideration is called a financial bank guarantee whereas a guarantee, which is issued in respect of performance of a contractual obligation is known as a performance bank guarantee.

Similarly, clauses related to the agent bank discretionary powers, majority and minority lenders, Pro rata clauses and consents.