The study highlights several statutory provisions along with case law examples relating to the holding of shares by minors and collateral contracts in the context of the case study. While shares are covered in certain specific codifications, contractual arrangements are largely governed by the common law system prevalent within Australia along with precedents and principles based out of the precedents. Aspects of international law have also been covered, highlighting the UN Global Compact and the UNCRC in terms of child labour and its prohibition among the State Parties. Relevant case law examples have been included where applicable and the IRAC method has been followed for a greater degree of clarity and comprehension.
The case scenarios present Eva as a holder of shares while she is a minor. Based on the analysis, it was identified that since she could not be the legal owner and would be deemed as the beneficial owner, the legal owner would have to pay the call on the shares in accordance to the existent provisions within Australia. It would be applicable irrespective of whether dividends are received and meetings are attended as the rule of law considers shares as offering a number of benefits apart from dividends.
The second issue was identified as Eva suffering from the breach of a collateral contract violation by Dockland, who had promised to build wetlands adjacent to the property post purchase. Based on the incorporation of precedents, it was identifies that Eva would succeed in her claim for compensation as the pre contractual statement fulfilled all the necessary elements of a falsely promised pre contractual statement.
The third scenario presents Eva travelling to Simbui and finding government officials hiring minor girls aged 12 to do menial work without payment. The activities therein were identified as being in clear violation of the principles of the UN Global Compact and Article 32 of UNCRC.
The facts enclosed within the case scenario start off depicting Eva as a minor who applied for and was eventually allocated shares in accompany. However, no dividends were received and she did not attend meetings. Eva receives a call on her shares by the company, asking her to pay the unpaid balance of the price ofthe shares owned by her. She was yet to run 18.
The next portion of facts within the case scenario depicts Eva receiving a large sum of money as inheritance from her grandmother. As she turned 21, she decided to purchase a townhouse from a company called Dockland for investment purposes. While making the purchase, Eva was promised that wetlands would be constructed adjacent to the property premises, which would increase the valuation due to the view. However, after the purchase was complete, Eva realized that the wetlands would not be constructed and decides to sue the company for the breach of a collateral contract.
The last portion presents Eva working as an international officer at Bushfield Education Pvt. Ltd. She works with the country of Simbui located in the Pacific and visits the region twice every year. When she was on one of her visits, she found that the government officers were using minor girls to undertake menial tasks for 10 hours a day. Furthermore, no payments were being made and the compensation was in the form of a promise to send the girls to Bushfield for education once they turned 16. Eva is aware that Bushfield is a member of Global Compact Network Australia and Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or UNCRC.
3.1 Issue A
3.2 Issue B
3.3 Issue C
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law for Commerce Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....