Solve Business and Corporate Law practical problems that arise from a fact scenario and to give appropriate advice to clients.

Your analysis should refer to appropriate cases and statutes and be referenced using the APA Reference system.

Question 1. Sharon owns a car parts store in the east of Sydney. There are a few such stores scattered in the area. Sharon's store imports motor vehicle parts from various Asian countries.

Sharon recently completed a very successful end-of-year sale and now hopes to replace the old stock with new stock from overseas. She already placed an order for the stock some months ago and she needs the new stocks urgently. The sale went very well and 70% of her stock was sold. She is aware that if she does not get the new stock in on time from overseas, she will lose a lot of money in sales. Her cash flow will be adversely affected, and she will not be able to pay her rent, telephone, and electricity costs. She will also struggle to meet employee salaries and the substantial payments on her overdraft with her bank. In fact, if her order from overseas is not delivered on time to her business, Sharon is likely to face bankruptcy.

She contacts the delivery company, Shipping-Solutions Pty Ltd, with which she has been dealing for a number of years. David is the director and owner of this company. He is now aware of Sharon's financial problems and instead of charging his company the normal delivery fee of $8,000 per delivery, which the parties have already agreed upon, David now advises Sharon that his company cannot deliver the goods for the agreed price and that if she wants them, she will need to pay $12,000 per delivery. Sharon is very unhappy with this news but reluctantly agrees because of her desperate financial position.

It takes three delivery trips for the goods to be received at Sharon's business and she pays a higher price for each delivery. The total payment is $36,000.

Sharon is distressed and seeks your advice.

REQUIRED:

With reference to relevant legal principles, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Sharon as to her common law rights against David and/or Shipping Solutions Pty Ltd. Use appropriate case law in support of your answer.

Question 2. Maurice has written a letter to his close friend, Liz. In the letter, he offers to sell her his sports car for $6,500. Liz calls Maurice and explains that she needs some time to think it over as she had not planned to buy a car soon. Maurice tells her, I'll give you until Monday, July 26 to let me know whether you want the sports car.”

On Thursday, July 22, Liz posts a letter to Maurice agreeing to buy the sports car at the specified price. Later that Thursday, Maurice is approached by his supervisor at work, Candice, who wishes to purchase Maurice's sports car. Candice offers $7,000 for the car. Maurice promptly accepts.

He phones Liz and leaves a message on her answering machine telling her that he has decided to sell the car to Candice instead.

Liz hears Maurice's message on Friday, July 23. Liz's letter to Maurice is not delivered until Monday, July 26.

REQUIRED:

With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Maurice as to whether he has any contractual obligations to Liz and to Candice.

Question 3. Janet is a major shareholder in NewAge Pty Ltd and has noted that the company maintains the old-fashioned memorandum of association which has been prepared for NewAge Pty Ltd. The memorandum contains an objects clause that limits the objects of the company to the development, manufacture, and sale of commercial computing devices. With the changing times where more people are working from home, Janet believes that the devices will soon be able to be used on a wide scale domestic basis by businesses looking to automate their computing needs and equip their workers to adjust to the home working environment. The company may therefore expand into a number of related areas including remote office management and software applications.

Janet has spotted an opportunity that may allow the company to enter into a contract with like-minded companies for the development of state-of-the-art remote office management equipment and software. She is however concerned that the narrowness of the memorandum may hamper the company's ability to move into the emerging lucrative area and also the development and commercial exploitation of the new opportunity.

Janet has read that there is no legal reason to have a memorandum or articles, even if they are now called corporate constitutions. When Janet discussed this with the company's other shareholders, they told her that they had been advised by the lawyers that this was the standard form for their companies and that there was no cause for concern. Janet is not convinced.

REQUIRED:

Advise Janet of the company's position regarding any new contracts that it may enter in connection with the development of remote office management equipment and software and also explain how the replaceable rules may be of use to the company in the future.

Question 4. Mrs. Duncan bought shares worth $170 000 shares in Beat-Coin Enterprises Pty Ltd when the company was incorporated by her friends Simon and Josephine Royce. At the time, this was equivalent to 10 % of the issued shares. Simon and Josephine Royce took up 35?ch and the remaining 20% was taken up by their son Paul.

Beat-Coin Enterprises Pty Ltd was run very profitably for several years. Dividends were regularly paid out of the profits of the company for the first 4 years. In the fifth year, there was a disagreement between Mrs. Duncan on the one hand and Simon and Josephine Royce on the other.

Subsequently, the company paid no dividends. The company however paid hefty salaries, bonuses, and directors' fees to the Royce family. They retained additional funds in the Retained Earnings account and did not allow Mrs. Duncan to inspect the records of the company. This effectively ensured that the Royce family received a steady income stream, while Mrs. Duncan received no funds from the company for the next 3 years.

She has tried to sell her shares but under the constitution of the company, the Royce Family are the only ones she is permitted to sell to, and they offered her $19,000 for her investment.

It is now four years since Mrs. Duncan received a dividend from the company, and she has come to seek your advice as to her position. She believes that the company is being run solely to benefit the Royce family and that she has been oppressed by their actions.

REQUIRED:

With reference to relevant sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and appropriate case law, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Mrs. Duncan whether she has any recourse.

Question 5. Lawrence is 35 years old. He is employed at the packaging warehouse of Plenty-Stocks Pty Ltd, a successful online retailer. Lawrence was injured on his back in 2020 when he was lifting a heavy box to load onto a delivery truck for dispatch. He had to go through spinal surgery and was off work recuperating for nine months. He was fully compensated for his injury and returned to work in 2021. Plenty-Stocks was aware of the injury and the operation.

Towards the end of 2021, Lawrence began to complain that his back was getting sore again. He was instructed by Plenty-Stocks not to lift heavy things and to be careful. Plenty-Stocks went ahead and provided a hydraulic lifting machine to assist him to carry out his job. After a few weeks, Lawrence stopped using the machine because he thought it was slowing him down. He continued to lift and load the boxes by himself.

In March 2022 online sales drastically increased and Lawrence had significantly more boxes to lift and load onto delivery trucks. He injured his back again and once again had to go through surgery. The nature of his back injury has left him unable to lift anything heavy and he is now unable to work again in the packaging industry.

REQUIRED:

With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Lawrence as to whether he would be successful in a negligence claim against Plenty-Stocks. Please explain fully, using relevant legal authority.

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Expert at Exam Question Bank. 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 Styles. 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 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 Turn tin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.