Business Law for Educational Administration

As observed in the given scenario, Jim and Steve were regarded to be the directors and shareholders of XYZ Pty Ltd. They have their own shares in this corporate trustee. Jim had engaged $3000 in a consulting firm named ABC Pty Ltd since it will help the business to grow. The issue that arose was that the moment Jim engaged himself into the business XYZ Pyt Ltd became insolvent. The individual who will be liable to ABC Pty Ltd for the $3000 consultancy fees is all the shareholders and directors of the pany. However, there was no contract formed between Jim and Leon from the ABC Pty Ltd. Jim realized that if he invests that amount in this consultancy firm then, his trustee firm would be able to stand or make a position in the market. Therefore, Jim without consulting the members of the pany invested the amount. It can be stated that Jim along with other shareholders and directors will be liable to ABC Pyt Ltd. According to the pany Law, the directors and shareholders of the pany will be liable if one of the directors is at fault. A pany is an artificial person and therefore it cannot be sued or be liable for the activities of the pany[1]. A shareholder of a pany is said to be limited by shares that has limited liability. However, the shareholders are said to be limited to the nominal value of its shares. The pany has a separate legal personality as pared to t he shareholders and a separate liability to the individuals associated with the pany. It can be analyzed that if a pany b es insolvent based on the director’s fault then, that particular director and other existing shareholders will be liable for it. A shareholder is said to be not that interested in the pany but since Jim was one of the directors of the pany he will be liable for such an occurrence[2]. Such a situation has been observed in the case of . Shlensky v Wrigley. However, the beneficiaries of the fixed family trust were their two adult children Mathew and Jenna. Anyhow, the XYZ Pyt Ltd was struggling to find a foothold in the market that Jim engaged $3000 to the consultancy firm of ABC Pyt Ltd. Jim was confident about his investment in the ABC Pyt Ltd. As per the panies Act, the directors of a pany are exposed to the liabilities as a consequence of a breach of their duties. Liabilities generally arise under various statutes but in this scenario, it arose under the pany Law. Lastly, it can be concluded stating that Jim and Steve will be held liable to ABC Pyt Ltd for the consultancy fees of $3000. In this given case, Cheryl and Beryl were business partners and had started a business called CB Investments. Both of them made a partnership deed with the help of a lawyer. Both of them buys a mercial plot of land from Arnold. Beryl also bought a residential block from Arnold that Cheryl was unaware about[3]. The mercial land bought by them was later sold and they earned a huge amount of profits. After twelve months or after a year, Cheryl found out that Beryl had purchased the residential block to make a lucrative investment. Cheryl and Beryl were partners and started a business of investment together. Therefore, they can exercise the rights of partners on each other and as well as on their purchases. In Australia, as per the Limitations and Partnership Act, a partner cannot sue the other partner based on an incident that happened a year ago[4]. The limitation of the time-period for suing the partner is less than twelve months. Being partners, they have equal rights and must have equal knowledge of the activities taking place in the business. If Cheryl had knowledge about this incident before the period of twelve months, she could have sued Beryl for keeping secrets from the other partner[5]. The profit earned on the residential property of $300,000 was also not informed to Cheryl. It was the duty of Beryl to inform Cheryl about the extra profit earned on the residential block. However, as per the Law, the partners will be entitled to receive the same amount of profits and should know about what the other partner is upto. Instead of suing Beryl, Cheryl can ask for her share from the $300.000 that was earned from the residential block[6]. Beryl will be liable for keeping secrets from Cheryl. According to law, an incorporated limited partnership where a limited partner is involved   will be liable only for a liability that has been acquired by the partnership. However, in certain circumstances, the limited partner will be held liable if the manner of the acts occur within the same State. A voluntary partnership can wind up if the agreement formed does not exist. As seen in the case of Griffiths CJ in Land v James Morrison & Co Ltd, one of the partners failed to sue the other partner because the duration was not less than twelve months. The CB Investments was a business set up by both Cheryl and Beryl in Queensland. The partnership deed should be a well documented one so that Cheryl can claim for her shares but since the limited period was twelve months and she found out about it a y ear later it will not make any difference[7]. However, Cheryl will be advised to sue Beryl for keeping secrets from her during the course of their partnership but will fail to do so because of the limited period. Lastly, it can be concluded stating that according to law, a partner can sue the other partner during their course of partnership based on the limitation period time. It can be observed it is important to discuss and disclose the activities of the partners during the course of partnership. Suing each other depends on the period of limitation[8]. Chen, Vivien, Ian Ramsay, and Michelle Welsh. "Corporate law reform in Australia: An analysis of the influence of ownership structures and corporate failure." (2016). De Silva Lokuwaduge, Chitra, and Anona Armstrong. ‘The impact of governance on the performance of the higher education sector in Australia.’  Educational Management Administration & Leadership  43.5 (2015): 811-827. Du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Andreas Rà ¼hmkorf. ‘New trends regarding sustainability and integrated reporting for panies: what protection do directors have?.’ (2015). Lyons, Malcolm, and Amanda Stark. "Enhanced scope for extension of patent term for pharmaceuticals under Australian law."  Pharmaceutical patent analyst  4.5 (2015): 351-355. Mà ©ndez, Carlos Fernà ¡ndez, Shams Pathan, and Rubà ©n Arrondo Garcà ­a. ‘Monitoring capabilities of busy and overlap directors: Evidence from Australia.’  Pacific-Basin Finance Journal  35 (2015): 444-469. Murray, Philomena. "EU–Australia relations: a strategic partnership in all but name?."  Cambridge Review of International Affairs  29.1 (2016): 171-191. Voon, Tania SL, and Andrew D. Mitchell. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership as a Development of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement: Services Liberalization and Investment Protection." (2016). Warner, Michael, and Rory Sullivan. "Introduction."  Putting Partnerships to Work. Routledge, 2017. 12-23.