Enterprise Law Assignment Sample

• Subject Code : 700254
• University : Western Sydney University My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Law

ASSESSMENT TASK 2: Assignment

Question One

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In this question, the contract was entered by the two parties namely; Daniel and Brandon. Daniel contracted with Brandon, The terms of the contract were that Daniel would deliver, in his own cost, all the required plant species, equipment, and materials, and Brandon would provide with the labor force and all the machinery necessary to carry out the operation. Daniel promised to pay $40,000 as a portion of his commitment and had been due upon closure of the project. Daniel challenged whether Brandon would receive $25,000 in payment in full of the amount, as received notice from the local government asking him to work following new laws, before being licensed for use. Brandon agreed to recognize the $25,000 in the complete payment of the account.

ISSUE 

The question is here is: Does Daniel and Brandon have a valid contract and was it fair, and can Brandon recover the remaining $15,000 from Daniel after discovering that Daniel? 

 “Intention to create legal relations, Agreement and Consideration” are the essential elements 

Unfair contract terms:

1. It causes significant damage

2. Is it not rationally obligatory to prevent the rightful interest of someone at the benefits side of the contract?

3. Detrimental to the interest 

APPLICATION:

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

According to common law, if the participants to the agreement decide to replace or terminate or amend a current agreement, the initial agreement will not have to be concluded. This system is referred to as Contract Novation. This implies replacing the current agreement with a fresh one. When a new contract is replaced by another one by an arrangement between the parties, the current agreement has thus discharged the duty of further a new agreement that comes into existence.

Both Daniel and Brandon had the legitimate option of agreeing, as Daniel submitted to Brandon the conditions of how the work was to be finished, and Brandon supplied Daniel with the fee required to finish the work. Satisfying the first component of a straightforward agreement. Brandon had accepted the proposal by starting the work this is the second component of the agreement, as both sides have decided on the fresh terms of the agreement. Daniel offered $40,000 for the work to be performed, and will be compensated in exchange for $40,000 upon finalization, and would produce anything at his detriment. 

This fulfills the final component of a straightforward agreement by which the two sides undertake the consideration by applying the conditions decided upon. As assessed by the components of the agreement, it shows that both Brandon and Daniel have all the aspects to fit into a binding agreement. Brandon may try to restore $15,000 as per sec. 60 of the concept of unfair, which specifies that perhaps the agreement is unfair if it causes important imbalances or damage to the freedoms of the applicant. Brandon is affected by the $15,000 disproportion, as important research has been accomplished and the quantity charged did not conform to the price paid, which was lowered from both the initial $40,000. This corresponds that Brandon is recommended to try to retrieve the amount that he thinks is due to an evaluation of “Fair-Trading Amendment Act” Going to cover the certain predictor that can be the subject of a single party. However, Brandon is not in a situation to obtain the rest of the amount under Fair Trade Amendment as Daniel made a $25,000 counter-offer where Brandon had approved of the offer. Daniel is thus shielded by the principles of contract law. Initially the consideration for the contract was $40,000 but after knowing the circumstances accepted $25,000 in full settlement of his account. By doing so he waived off the earlier consideration for the contract and new consideration for the same contract comes into play.

CONCLUSION: 

Daniel is shielded by the three components of the law of contract as he had a binding agreement with Brandon. Even though Brandon thinks that he was unjustly harmed as a result of the new terms of agreement of the settlement, he could potentially pursue $15,000 under the Fair Trade Act 2010 but would not recover the amount as Brandon approved the Counter-Offer from Daniel. Brandon will be unable to retrieve the due sum since he agreed to recognize the $25,000 incomplete payment of the account, and Daniel instantly paid that sum of money. Therefore Brandon could not recover the remaining amount even if he felt cheated by Daniel.

Question Two

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this question, Rebecca and Joel started a business together named ‘Fusion Flowers’ and for that Joel contributed $50,000.00 as capital and Rebecca contributed her vehicle, tools and other equipment. They agreed to split the Profits50:50. Here the business entity started by both had emerged as a ‘Partnership Business' as it satisfies all the criteria for determining the existence of a partnership.  

ISSUES

Such requirements are as follows: a valid contract here between participants; • a joint project to conduct a company–as compared to a separate or independent operation. joint-ownership relates to the sheer reality that individuals may be shared-owners and have a part-ownership which does not constitute a relationship in them.  Typically, if the laws below the stage to collaboration, they would usually fulfill that rule. 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Rules of partnership: 

“A partnership as the relationship that exists between individuals engaged in a company in common with a perspective to profit.”  Carrying a business relates to the continuing activity of the partners. In prevalent, it asks if the partners are engaged in the same company or merely an associated company. With a perspective to benefit, it exempts voluntary or charitable activities• If a relationship exists, it shows particular features the corresponding agency, indicating each partner works as an agent. Each affiliate liabilities of the company and is liable to pay some of the company and its stake.  Each member owes fiduciary responsibilities to the member which are: 

1. obligation to prevent conflicts of interest 

2. obligation to prevent taking benefit of their place for private purposes

3. Participation in gross yields; usually,' partners' should distribute gross yields based on their stake in the company. , if people share gross profits, then partnership certainly exists.

4. Profit-sharing; Article 6(3) offers that the distribution of revenues is provable of the existence of a partnership. 

5. Loss sharing; Section 28 describes that all associates should contribute equally to the risks of the company.

6. Partner rights Usually, where an individual performs those privileges that would normally be practiced by a real partner, the further the relationship may be charged.

APPLICATION

“The most common partner’s rights are the right to participate in the firm’s management and the right to access the firm's books and confidential financial reports”. A person that does not have the right to intervene in the leadership of a business is often related to as a silent partner relationship as a business structure involving a number of individuals engaged in a business together and in order to determine that not every particular individual engaged in a company is a' partner,' guidance is provided in Section 6 of the Act.  In the first event, Rebecca will be liable for the requested payment of the outstanding invoice.$1,500 by Ooh Orchids even if she says she would never have agreed for the order made by Joel for the very unusual, costly flowers without her knowledge. This is due to the reality that a partner is completely liable for the liabilities incurred.

This comes by the virtue of Section 9 which states that every partner or individual deemed to be a partner shall be the principal of the company and may, therefore, attach the company and its associates.In the second instance, Rebecca will be responsible for $5,000 in damages to the other driver's vehicle caused by Matthew's incident.Interestingly here, Matthew was not a partner but his actions will constitute him as an agent of the business of the partnership run by Rebecca and Joel because they hired Matthew to take care of deliveries as they were facing difficulties in keeping up with the orders.

As noted the concern of “holding out' which is addressed is especially relevant.” The partners can be liable for non-partner actions as they would be responsible for actions in the conduct. In the last event, another business for selling flowers specifically for weddings started by Rebecca will not come within the preview of partnership as she started this business as a separate entity from the ‘Fusion Flowers'. The fact that Rebecca and Joel have previously discussed the prospects of supplying flowers for weddings does not change a thing and she will be the sole owner of that business company.

Question Three

FACTS OF CASE:

Dani and Steve are trying to start a hairstyling salon together in Sydney's internal suburb. They have established and guaranteed an ideal site, pending approval by the council of the construction and growth plans. After a thorough check, they have already chosen on a general and fitting contractor to finish the job. The contractor had sent over the normal employment contract

ISSUE 

The attorneys have recognized 3 conditions of the agreement should be reviewed based on its terms

Types of terms in a contract are :

1) Warranty

2) Condition

3) Innominate

APPLICATION

1. Essentially, a condition is the foundation of an agreement. It sets out the commitments for each party. The easiest way to think about the situation in contract law The contractor will hire a decorative advisor to finish the official interior demonstration of the estate utilizing entertainment devices for use by customers during operation of the service. It is a phrase in an agreement that is more like a pledge by one partner than a situation decided by both sides. The main distinction here is that the party fails to comply with the guarantee, the injured party may claim damages, and however, the inability does not give rise to the termination of the agreement. if the opposite party believes the guarantee by a party to be sufficiently essential, it can be categorized as a condition. However, in general terms, it is only a declaration of facts.

2. “The parties agree that time is to be of the essence in respect of all aspects of the construction and payments schedule of this agreement.” These are essential Expressed terms of the contract if the contractor fails to fulfill that requirement, he may be held liable in violation of the agreement. The aggrieved party can view this inability of a vendor to fulfill its commitments as "repudiatory," implying plaintiff has two alternatives: to suspend the agreement  and to withdraw of any commitments that the client may owe; or to handle the deal as ongoing It is essential to remember that in either situation the aggrieved party to sue for the infringement.

3. it is acknowledged by the client that the contractor cannot be held responsible in the incident of an infringement caused as a result of the contracting company, its workers or subcontractors, along with actions that would otherwise comprise carelessness, except where stated in the law. It is an innominate concept that cannot be characterized as either a condition or a guarantee in agreement. a party seeks legal backing for the failure of another group to satisfy the responsibilities of an unnamed term, it the determination of the remedy will be in the hands of the court. It seeks for excluding one party from its obligations or to restrict the individual's responsibility to particular conditions, or situations. It may be signed an agreement to eliminate or limit one's liability for violation of contract or neglect.“Prevents them from liability should be integrated into the agreement must be clearly stated ̈ It may be integrated by signature, notice or course of business.”