LAW6000 - Business And Corporates Law Case Study Demonstrate a Sound Comprehension - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Task:

Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the following subject learning outcomes:
b) Demonstrate a sound comprehension of the essential elements required to create, manage and discharge a contract and assess the remedies available for breach of a contract;
c) Examine legal principles related to creation and operation of various forms of business organisations and critically evaluate their effectiveness across a range of business scenarios.
d) Explain the processes for incorporating, managing and winding up of a company, including key director duties, the importance of the Corporations Act 2001 and the role of regulatory bodies.
e) Evaluate the role of agency in contract formation for different business vehicles and identify the associated risks such as vicarious liability for negligent acts.
f) Employ legal skills (statute law and case law), critical reasoning and make informed judgements as to likely legal outcomes of a range of business scenarios.

Context: 
This assessment allows students to solve practical problems that arise from a fact scenario and to  give appropriate advice to clients.

Instructions: 
There are five case studies you are required to critically analyse.  
With respect to each case study: 
Identify the legal issue(s) arising from the facts of the case study 
Identify the appropriate legal rules that requires discussion in the case study

Apply the law to the facts of the case study 
Reach a conclusion/ give practical advice to your client. 
Your analysis should refer to appropriate cases and statutes and be referenced using the APA Reference system. 
Submission is through Safe Assign by 11.55 AEST Sunday of Week 9 of the relevant trimester
Question 1 
Paul is the managing director of Dynamight Pty Ltd (‘Dynamight’) which is involved in the  manufacture of electric dynamos. Paul, on behalf of Dynamight, has accepted an order for  300 electric dynamos from Motor Solutions Pty Ltd (‘Motor Solutions’). 
The order has been delivered to Motor Solutions in the terms agreed. Motor Solutions are  however yet to settle the invoice in the sum of $90 000 from Dynamight. 
It is well known across the industry that Motor Solutions is in serious financial difficulty. In  fact, at the time the order was made, Motor Solutions was generally known as a bad credit risk in the industry. Paul was aware of this too. However, his good friend Bob, is the managing  director of Motor Solutions and Paul therefore decided to supply the order nonetheless. 
Motor Solutions has now been placed into liquidation and has still not paid the debt owed to Dynamight Pty Ltd. 
Required 
(a) With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem-solving  approach, advice whether Paul, the managing director of Dynamight Pty Ltd can be  held personally liable for the unpaid debt, and if so why? (10 Marks) 
(b) Explain whether Bob, the managing director of Motor Solutions Pty Ltd can be held  personally liable for the unpaid debt, and if so why? (5 Marks) (c) What is the relevance of the ‘business judgment rule’ in Paul’s circumstances and in  Bob’s circumstances? (5 Marks) 
Question 2 
Michael has posted a letter to his close friend, Lorraine. In the letter he offers to sell her his  sports car for $4,700. Lorraine calls Michael and explains that she needs some time to think it  over as she had not planned to buy a car soon. Michael tells her, “I’ll give you until November 19 to let me know whether you want the sports car.” 
On November 15, Lorraine posts a letter to Michael agreeing to buy the sports car at the  specified price. Later on the same day, Michael is approached by his manager at work, Colleen,  who wishes to purchase Michael’s sports car. Colleen offers $5,000 for the car. Michael promptly accepts. He phones Lorraine and leaves a message on her answering machine telling  her that he has decided to sell the car to Colleen instead. 
Lorraine hears Michael’s message on November 16. Lorraine’s letter to Michael is not delivered  until November 19.

REQUIRED: 
With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to  advise Michael as to whether he has any contractual obligations to Lorraine and to Colleen. 
Question 3 
Meshack is a marketer through his business and through his business, Alternative Sounds, he  managed the Australian singing tour for Jay Loh, a popular music artiste. Entertainment  Concepts Pty Ltd agreed to finance the tour. Last year Alternative Sounds and Entertainment  Concepts entered into a written agreement where Alternative Sounds agreed to assign to  Entertainment Concepts a half interest in the contracts and to perform the said contracts as a  'joint venture'. The finance advanced by Entertainment Concepts was described as a loan to  the joint venture. They agreed that the net profits would be divided at the end of the contract.  They also agreed that all matters were to be agreed by the parties and any losses were not to  be shared on the same basis as the profits. The agreement provided that, after Entertainment  Concepts had been repaid the loan and other expenses, any profits made from Jay Loh’s concerts were to be shared equally between the marketer and Entertainment Concepts. After  a few months a dispute arose and Meshack is now concerned about whether they are in fact  in a partnership or a joint venture. 
REQUIRED:  
Using the IRAC method of problem solving, explain whether the agreement between  Alternative Sounds and Entertainment Concepts Pty Ltd was a joint venture or a partnership. Give supporting case law.  
Question 4 
Satwant worked as an employee driver of Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd. The staff at this company were instructed to comply with a work system designed by Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd in the  execution of their tasks.  
Due to pressure of the very competitive market the company decided to terminate the services  of all its drivers and did not wish to employ any drivers again. All the members of staff whose  employment was terminated were offered the opportunity to set up their own companies, which would then enter into contract with Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd to provide services in their  own right. This was considered to be a more viable option for the company.

Satwant took up this opportunity and formed his own company “Kwic Transport Ltd”. He  purchased his own truck and worked for his company following the work system that had been  designed by Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd. He did not take out any employee insurance.  
After three months, while delivering goods under his company’s contract with Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd, he injured his leg when unloading good from the truck. He sued Reliable Truckies Pty  Ltd for his injuries, stating that he had followed their work system.  
REQUIRED:  
Using the IRAC methodology of legal analysis, advise whether Satwant can sue his own  company and, further, whether he will succeed in his action against Reliable Truckies Pty Ltd.  Support your answer with appropriate case law. 
Question 5 
Jennifer worked for Wayward Sales Pty Ltd, a company that buys and sells designer furniture.  She was in charge of sales and was one of the best salespeople on the team. The company  decided to dismiss her unfairly and she made up her mind to take legal action against Wayward  Sales Pty Ltd for wrongful dismissal. The directors of Wayward Sales Pty Ltd quickly called an  emergency board meeting because they were apprehensive that Jennifer would succeed in her  action. If she succeeded, Wayward Sales Pty Ltd would have to pay her substantial sums of  money, which would wipe out most of the company’s profit. After quick discussion they opted to restructure Wayward Sales Pty Ltd by transferring all of the company’s assets to a new  company which they created and named Designer Collections Pty Ltd. They paid all the  creditors of Wayward Sales Pty Ltd before the transfer. Jennifer was successful in her wrongful  dismissal claim and the court awarded substantial damages against Wayward Sales Pty Ltd.  However, the company could not pay the amount because it had no assets left. 
REQUIRED:  
With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach, explain  whether there are any grounds that would allow Jennifer to enforce the judgment against  Antique Collections Pty Ltd. Give supporting case law. 

This LAW6000 - Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.