Are you seeking with your pending assignments on the topic of Business And Corporation Law Assignment Help? If you are a student of Business And Corporation Law and you are facing many difficulties with your assignment. It must be hard to solve these complicate assignment. Its take lots of time to complete this assignment. You get instant assignment help from Assignmenthelp4you. We have a team of 1800+ tutors who provide you best assignment help writing service. We know that there are many companies who provide Business And Corporation Law Assignment help writing service but they don’t work so as well because their assignment are not written on the latest research. Our professionals also provide you plagiarism and error free solution for your Business And Corporation Law Assignment help. Assignmenthelp4you is the most reputed company in the world. You get distinction marks in your assignment with the help of our tutors. We offer best assignment help writing for your Business And Corporation Law Assignment at a very cheap price. Contact us anytime for your online assignment help because our professionals tutors are available 24*7. Our experts always ready to share their experience and knowledge. Get best assignment help for Business And Corporation Law Assignment from Assignmenthelp4you.
The implication of the applicable law in some of the particular case study has been considered to be essential. Individuals involved in a particular transaction have been able to identify the remedies available on any kind of breach with the assistance of the applicable law. The case study 1 provides a detailed analysis of the contract law and its application in the case scenario that has been mentioned.
In the given case study of SOO Burgers, it has been found that the company has a chain of hamburger restaurants. The restaurants have been operating in different regions of Australia as well as New Zealand. The company developed the strategy for selling more hamburgers. For this purpose, a promotion named as “the Fair Dinkum deal” has been announced by the company on radio, newspaper as well as online. In the strategy, it has been announced by the company that a token would be attached on the wrapper of each of the “Double Decker Emu Burger”. The consumers have been required to gather 50 such kinds of tokens. The consumers who would be gathering 50 tokens, a golden scratch ticket would be redeemable for such kind of consumers. However, in the announcement of the promotion, it was mentioned that the offer has been given for a specific period of time. It was also stated in the promotion that the consumers would be having a chance to win a car if it has been revealed in the golden tickets. Michael “Mickey” Morrow was one of the consumers for the company who showed keen interest in the promotion. On the next of the announcement, he went to the restaurant and ordered 50 Double Decker Emu Burgers. However, after having 50 Double Decker Emu Burgers, he fell ill and was admitted to the hospital. In the given case study, it has been observed that some of the tokens issued by the company were thrown in garbage. Brett Vulture was an individual who collected 100 such kind of tokens and went to the restaurants for the redemption of the collected tokens. After scratching the golden tickets, it was discovered that Brett Vulture was liable for two cars. After discovering this fact, Brett Vulture went to the headquarters of the company for claiming the reward. It has been found that Brett Vulture noticed a paper in which it was written that the promotion was printed by error.
According to the company, no kind offer of cars was made to the consumers. After reading the notice on the board, he observed that one of the consumers came out of the cabin by shaking hands with one of the employees of the company. The consumer said that he was happy by winning the car as he approached the company first of all the consumers. When Mickey was discharged from the hospital, he was aware of the news that the offer made by the company was an error and none of the consumers was going to win the car. This was done by the company as every one in five tickets was containing winning of the car by the consumers. On this basis, the company was not able to meet its promise made to the consumers. Therefore, in the given case study, it can be said that the withdrawal of the offer of winning the car by SOO Burgers is the main issue that have been identified. Due to the withdrawal of the offer, two of the consumers of the company suffered damages.
According to the Contract Law, contract has been considered to be an agreement that has been including making of an offer and its acceptance. It has been found that all the statements made by one of the party does not constitute contract (Farmer and Hu, 2016). According to Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sheriff, High Court of Malaya, Seremban & Ors  2 MLJ 114, the advertisement made by one of the party has been considered as an attempt for making an offer (Murray Jr and Murray, 2018). However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. There are two kinds of advertisement under the Contract law which are as follows:
· Bilateral contract
· Unilateral contract
In case of bilateral contract, an invitation to the offer has been made by one party to the party. In case of unilateral contract, price has been held according to the common law. Unilateral contract has been enforceable in the court (Savelyev, 2017). A conditional offer has been considered to be a contract in which the performance of one of the party has been depending on a condition (Bayern, 2015). On the performance of the condition, the conditional contract has been claimed to be enforceable. In the given case study of SOO Burgers, it has been realised that a conditional offer was made by the company through advertisement in newspaper, social media and radio. The condition was that the consumers were required to have hamburgers and collect 50 tokens. On the collection of 50 tokens, the consumers would be having a chance of winning a car from the company (Krähmer and Strausz, 2015). Therefore, when a consumer has 50 hamburgers, a contract would be formed between the company and the consumer. It has been found that two consumers accepted the offer made by the company by performing the condition imposed by the company of having 50 hamburgers. On the basis of this fact, it can be said that a contract was formed between the company and Brett Vulture as well as Michael “Mickey” Morrow.
It can be said that Brett Vulture as well as Michael “Mickey” Morrow were entitled to win the car after scratching the golden tokens. However, the company withdrew the offer made through advertisement in newspaper, radio as well as social media. This was done by the company by informing the consumers that there was a printing error in the advertisement (Governatori et al., 2018). On the basis of this fact, it can be said that Brett Vulture as well as Michael “Mickey” Morrow were in contract with the company. There was a breach of contract done by the company and therefore, Brett Vulture as well as Michael “Mickey” Morrow could claim for the damages suffered by them due to the withdrawal of the offer by the company. According to the Contract Law, Brett Vulture as well as Michael “Mickey” Morrow has been able to claim for the compensation in respect of the hamburgers bought by them for the purpose of collecting 50 tokens.
The application of correct law in an effective manner is essential in any situation. The assignment focuses on the applicability of the contract law and the corporations’ law. Similar to that of the scenario of case study 1, the case study 2 also provides a case scenario and the application of the corporations’ law for dealing with the issue that has been mentioned in the case study.
In the given case study of Joytronics Pty Ltd (Joytronics), it has been found that the company has been operating a retail shop for the sale of electronics kits, components, semiconductors, enclosures, batteries & chargers, power supplies, test equipment, tools, speakers, and car audio and stereo equipment and accessories. There were three shareholders as well as directors of the company who were Felix, Gregg and Mercedes. The company was gaining a large amount of profit. On this basis, it was proposed by Felix that the company was required to be shifted to a larger store in different regions of Sydney. He did that without taking the approval of the other shareholders of the company.
For the opening of new stores, Felix called a board meeting and announced to Gregg and Mercedes in this respect. It has been found that Mercedes was not sure for this proposal and so he disagreed with the idea of Felix of buying new warehouse for the company. However, Gregg agreed with the idea of Felix of buying new warehouse for the company. On this basis, the procedure for buying the new warehouse was initiated by Felix. After the duration of three months, it was concluded that the opening of new stores was not profitable for the company. On the basis of different facts, it has been found that the main issues rising in the given case study of Joytronics Pty Ltd (Joytronics) was that Felix made the decision of buying new warehouse for the purpose of opening new stores in different regions of Sydney without discussing with the other shareholders of the company.
According to Corporations Act 2001, the directors of a company have been given the right to exercise powers as the director of the company in different circumstances (Buscombe, 2019). For considering the fulfilment of duties in exercising care and diligence by the director of a company, there are certain circumstances that are required to be considered. These are the size and nature of the business, type of company, composition of its board as well as the distribution of the work between the boards. In the given case study of Joytronics Pty Ltd (Joytronics), it has been found that Felix made all the decisions for the company without considering the approval of other directors of the organization (Coggins, Teng and Rameezdeen, 2016). According to Corporations Act 2001, it has been found that a director of a company is required to take decisions for and on behalf of the company with the approval of all the directors of the company (Bottomley et al., 2017).
It has been observed that Mercedes did not agree with the decision of Felix. On the basis of this fact, it can be said that Mercedes could claim that he would not be bearing any kind of loss suffered to the company due to the decision that was made by Felix. According to 180 (2) of the Corporations Act 2001, the decisions that have been met by the directors of a company are required to be taken in good faith and not for the material personal interest (Bandara and Nguyen, 2015). Mercedes knew that the financial position of the company did not support the decision made by Felix. On the basis of this fact, it can be said that the decision of Mercedes to disagree to the purchase of the new premises was protected by section 180 (2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Carey, 2015). According to the section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001, it has been found that it is the duty of director for the prevention of insolvent trading by company (Crockett and Ali, 2015). If any of the director of the company fails in the prevention of the company from incurring the debt, it would be assumed that there has been contravention of section 180 (2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Stephens, 2017). On this basis, it can be said that she would be liable for breaching section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), if Joytronics becomes insolvent (Coggins, Teng and Rameezdeen, 2016). In case of Gregg, it has been found that he agreed with the decision made by Felix to the purchase of the new premises for the company (Ramsay, 2015). He did not consider the financial position of the company before agreeing to the purchase. On the basis of this fact, it can be said that the decision of Gregg to agree to the purchase of the new premises was not protected by section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Bottomley et al., 2017). It has been further noticed that Gregg was required to initiate some of the measures for the prevention of the insolvent trading by the company. This has been considered to be one of the duties of the director of the company under the Corporations Act 2001. On this basis, it can be said that it can be said that he would be liable for breaching section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), if Joytronics becomes insolvent.
From the above discussion, it can be said that the importance of implication of the applicable laws to the specific case studies have been increasing. There are several advantages of the implication of the applicable laws that have been gained by the parties involved in the particular case study. With the implication of the above mentioned laws, the issues and challenges arising in some of the particular case studies have been resolved in an effective manner.
Bandara, Y.M. and Nguyen, H.O., 2015. Port infrastructure pricing policy and practice: a case study of Australia and New Zealand seaports. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 7(2), pp.110-131.
Bayern, S., 2015. Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept. Calif. L. Rev., 103, p.67.
Bottomley, S., Hall, K., Spender, P. and Nosworthy, B., 2017. Contemporary Australian Corporate Law. Cambridge University Press.
Buscombe, I., 2019. Insolvent Trading and Fraudulent Trading in Australia: Regulation and Context. The Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 17(1), pp.44-46.
Carey, P.J., 2015. External accountants’ business advice and SME performance. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(2), pp.166-188.
Coggins, J., Teng, B. and Rameezdeen, R., 2016. Construction insolvency in Australia: reining in the beast. Construction Economics and Building, 16(3), pp.38-56.
Crockett, M. and Ali, M.J., 2015. Auditor independence and accounting conservatism: Evidence from Australia following the corporate law economic reform program. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 23(1), pp.80-104.
Farmer, W.M. and Hu, Q., 2016, July. A formal language for writing contracts. In 2016 IEEE 17th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) (pp. 134-141). IEEE.
Governatori, G., Idelberger, F., Milosevic, Z., Riveret, R., Sartor, G. and Xu, X., 2018. On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 26(4), pp.377-409.
Krähmer, D. and Strausz, R., 2015. Optimal sales contracts with withdrawal rights. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(2), pp.762-790.
Murray Jr, J.E. and Murray, T., 2018. Corbin on Contracts Desk Edition. LexisNexis.
Ramsay, I., 2015. Increased corporate governance powers of shareholders and regulators and the role of the corporate regulator in enforcing duties owed by corporate directors and managers. European Business Law Review, 26(1), pp.49-73.
Raskin, M., 2016. The law and legality of smart contracts.
Savelyev, A., 2017. Contract law 2.0:‘Smart’contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Information & Communications Technology Law, 26(2), pp.116-134.
Stephens, B., 2017. The amorality of profit: transnational corporations and human rights. In Human rights and corporations (pp. 21-66). Routledge.