The Rule in Turquand's Case

Grocery, Inc. was not aware that Company A had delegated Company B to continue the renovation. Grocery, Inc. ascertains the occurrence of this transaction after monitoring the quality of workmanship. However, Grocery, Inc. dismay, caused the store filed a petition for an injunction

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

Corporate capacity and authority were essential legal concepts which contained rules for when and how a company ought to be legally recognised as having validly acted and entered into a binding contract with third parties. Broadly speaking, the rules which applied to corporate capacity were the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice. In regard to the concept of corporate authority, both the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice also applied however their application was curtailed by the Turquand rule. The Turquand rule therefore only applied when the authority of directors was in question. A definitional overview of the concepts of corporate capacity and authority will be provided below, along with brief description of the doctrine of constructive notice and the Turquand rule.

Case 37.5: Duty of Loyalty. Edward Hellenbrand ran a comedy club known as the Comedy Cottage in Rosemont, Illinois. The business was incorporated, with Hellenbrand and his wife as the corporation’s sole shareholders. The corporation leased the premises in which the club was located. Hellenbrand hired Jay Berk as general manager of the club. Two years later, Berk was made vice present of the corporation and given 10 percent of its stock. Hellenbrand experienced health problems, and moved to Nevada, leaving Berk to manage the daily affaires of the business. Four years later, the ownership of the building where the Comedy Cottage was located changed hands. Shortly thereafter, the club’s lease on the premises expired. Hellenbrand instructed Berk to negotiate a new lease. Berk arranged a month-to-month lease, but had the lease agreement drawn up in his name instead of the corporation. When Hellenbrand learned of Berk’s move, he fired him. Berk continued to lease the building in his own name, and opened his own club, the Comedy Company, Inc., there. Hellenbrand sued Berk for an injunction to prevent Berk from leasing the building. Comedy Cottage, Inc. v. Berk, 145 III.App.3d 355, 495 N.E.2d 1006, Web 1986 III.App.Lexis 2486 (Appellate Court of Illinois).

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

In the Final Paper (Case Study) it speaks to the following case and circumstances. Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced.

-Where no amount was stated the court focused on the grossly undercapitalized (THE STANDARD) corporation in order to defraud and harm creditors

Welcome to TOP Education and TLAW201 COMPANY LAW. This document provides you with information relevant to successful completion of this unit; including schedule of lecture topics, prescribed texts, assessment policies, assessment tasks, examinations, academic and administrative contacts and online learning support facilities.

The relative lack of government regulation is an advantage of the corporate form of business.

The appellant, New Hotel Monteleone, in presenting its case to the Court of Appeals made a tragic mistake. Ignoring the long held legal standard that the Court of Appeals is restricted to relying on the evidence submitted at trial, the appellant attempted to reargue the evidence that was already considered by the jury in the trial court. To the credit of the Court of Appeals, the Court limited its inquiry to whether or not the actions of the appellant hotel were in compliance with the legal standard of care established in the case of Nordmann v. National Hotel Company. The Court, in Margreiter, described, in detail, that the appellant was attempting to fashion an argument that was improper. The appellant should have been fashioning a legal argument and not one based on a factual determination.

The Holding: Yes, Defendant did meet the standard required to move for a federal summary judgement to dismiss the causes of action.

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

The courts ruled that the plaintiff had not right to use such coercive methods when competing for business and the liability was clear in this circumstance. The defendant was awarded $1250.00 by the plaintiff for compensatory damages and $4000.00 was awarded by the association for exemplary damages. Plaintiff attempted to appeal stating the awarded amount was excessive; the courts ruled that the amount awarded was not excessive and denied the appeal from the plaintiff. No dissenting opinion was made.

When providing the distinction between the above charges the two stage process of legal characterization developed in Agnew must be applied by the English courts. The object of the first stage of the process is to ascertain the nature of the rights and obligations which the parties intended to grant each other in respect of the charged assets. Once these have been ascertained, the Court can then embark on the second stage of the process, which is one of categorization and designed to attribute the correct legal label to the package of rights and obligations. Lord Millett’s reasoning has been approved by the House of Lords in Re Spectrum in which emphasis was given to the freedom of the company to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business rather than the two first criteria focusing on the nature of the secured assets.