The Case Of Salomin V Salomon & Co Ltd.

The case Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. v. Douglas Castro asserts that Douglas Castro, a former

This essay will discuss obligatory elements in implementing the breach of Section 184 of the Corporations Act 2001 by Mr Clive Palmer. Corporation law is a wide concept of law which comprise of all the legal issues related to Business organisations. With the help of reference to relevant case law this essay will argue that Mr Palmer breached section 184 of the Corporation Act 2001 by not acting in good faith, improper use of position and information and intentional bad business judgements. This essay will provide sufficient evidence that Mr Palmer should be examined by ASIC, hence agreeing with the voluntary administrator.

The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Provision of care to the patients involves a collaborative work of different professionals. These include paramedics, laboratory technicians and those specialized in imaging. For the provision of quality care to the patients these professionals must play their duties accordingly (Dent, 2012). In the case of Hooks SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin the pharmacists are being accused of filling drugs at a faster rate causing harm to the patient, McLaughlin.

The Myers v. U.S. case challenges the President’s role and power of Chief Executive. This case questions that power because as Chief Executive the President has the job of appointing federal officials into office, however it is called into question on whether or not he can remove officials as well. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President claiming that he did not need Senate approval in order to dismiss Myers from his appointed office.

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

Firstly there is a significant Ethical and morale lapse in a share floated company when the CEO engages in related party transactions. The moral issues arise

In the case of Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler and others; Fowler v Faccenda Chicken Ltd - [1986] 1 All ER 617 it was stated that plaintiff company was involved in the business of selling fresh chicken from refrigerator van which travelled through specific paths within a specific area. Each and every salesman will received sales details about the clients’ names and addresses, overall limits of the routes, amount and quality of goods sold and prices charged. After that, the defendant operated his business in the same location, same path, served the same types of clients as the plaintiff. Five of the defendant’s colleague had left the plaintiff and joined the defendant's employment. None of the colleague is bound by a contract that prevents them from offering service immediately

Salamon v. Salamon & Co. Ltd has a significance principle that has been recognised universally. Refer to s16(5) in The Act, once company is registered, the new company is a juristic person that separate from its members. Likewise, company has the full responsible on its own debts and contractual

Pharmed First Inc. is a widely successful chain pharmaceutical company with 85 drugstores located in Canada’s Atlantic provinces. George Brenner is one of the 6 regional managers and Angela MacFee is a store manager in a mall located in Dartmouth. One of MacFee’s loyal customers have purchased 9 packages of Diet Magic on September 2011 however wanted to return them on May 2012. Subsequently, MacFee reacted hastily and defensively, arguing with Johnston in spite of Pharmed First Inc. return policy (Figure 1). As a result, Johnston wrote a letter to Frank Chen, the president of Pharmed First Inc. and told Brenner to deal with it. He proposed that the company gives Johnston a $500 voucher and that MacFee apologizes. However, MacFee remained inflexible as she also challenged Brenner’s authority.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Salomon is a shoe manufacturer. He runs his business as Sole Proprietorship with name “Salomon & Co Ltd.” After he married and had five children, he decided to register his business