Delivery in day(s): 3
Corporate Law Assignment
This is the solution of corporate law assignmetn help in which we discuss about law related to orgenizationa and implementation of law for sucessfil business.
This corporate law assignment focuses on the laws related to the expansion of business in an ethical manner and the laws related to the violation of business. In order to understand the concepts of both this laws clearly, certain cases are analysed in which both the laws relating to the topic are implemented.
The case study focuses on Jack, Jill and Max, the owners of a successful business selling truck. They have been involved in this business for twelve months but have not organised for a formal business structure. With the rapid rise in the business, the owners want to update their business and build an appropriate infrastructure.
Jack and his friends have many options regarding upgrading their infrastructure. They can provide safety and security of the employees. According to Safa et al. (2016, p.15) it is essential to maintain the health of the employees in order to increase the productivity of the business. There are other options that they can consider adopting new technologies. However, they need to ensure that the employees are well-trained regarding the use of the businesstechnologies. They can provide training facilities to the employees for enhancing their skills. However, Jack and his friends need to ensure that the changes they implement in the organisation do not violate any organisational law and ethics. They need to have a proper understanding of the law regarding the changes in the organisation.
Recommendations made to Jack and its justification
Jack and his friends need to mention the health and security of all the employees. As per the G20 (Safety and Security) Act, 2013 it is important to provide proper health and safety of the employees working in an organisation. For the situation between Pilmer v Duke Group Limited, the high court of Australia reproached the structure of the association for summoning alarm among the representatives through whimsical administration activity. Jack and his friends need to consider the compensation of the supervisors and privileges of the shareholders to comply with the Economic Reform Program Act, 2004. They can seek this information from an authoritative constitution that can cause both favourable circumstances and hindrances for the truck offering organisation as the whole business arrangement will go under the responsibility of the organisation (Austlii.edu.au, 2016).
Factors influencing the advice
According to Poole (2012, p.26), the health and safety of all the employees is a very important factor for any organisation. The fact that this particular business need requires the manufacturing of trucks, the risk of health among the employees is very high. As per the ethical laws related to the organisations situated in Australia, the employees need to have proper protective gears that can help them to avoid any harmful consequences. Section 2(d) and 2(f) of the Corporations Act 2001 also state that the wellbeing of the employees is a must in every organisation. These factors are influential in choosing the advice recommended for Jack and his friends. However, in the case of any injuries to the employees, all the partners of the company are liable to face legal jurisdiction. Klettner et al. (2014, p.150), stated that since the partners share equal rights in the company, the legal act regarding any indiscipline or unethical conduct binds on all of them. This fact is stated in Partnership Act, 1891.
Corporate liability of Betty’s action
Child Toys Supreme Pty Ltd sells cheap toys in the Australia and this company has a salesperson, Betty. However, Betty promised to the retailer that these toys do not have any harmful materials. This incident can fall under Corporation Act 2001 S(9), this act falls under the Commonwealth of Australia and this act deals out the laws of business entities. This act works in Australia at the interstate level and federal level. Corporation Act 2001 tells that any unethical business trading and dishonesty in business falls into the criminal act as it is completely intentional (Miller, 2016, p.56). This act is a punishable offence. Betty deceived the clients about the dangerous segments of the toys for improving the monetary benefit of the business. Betty was at risk for giving sufficient data about the items and its qualities keeping in mind the end goal to take after the rules of Fair Trading Act 1986 of Australia. Rather than that, Betty abused the assignment to connect with the clients in an unsafe legally binding assertion that depended on hazardous untruths. A toy got to be harmed because of the presence of the dangerous material of the toy that can be sufficient to consider the activities of Betty as serious wrongdoing under the corrective code of Australia. Betty made a fake guarantee to the clients enthusiastically that is an infringement of Australian contract law.
Fair Trading Act 1986 clearly states that this act protects any consumers against any mislead or unfairly treating by any traders or any organisation (Mitchell et al.2012, p.88). This act stops misleading or any kind of deceptive behaviour, unsubstantiated claims of any organisation or any false representation in the case of any unfair practice. This Fair Trading Act 1986 applies when information of certain products are disclosed to the customers that help to ensure the quality of the products for the safety of the customers. Consumer Guarantees Act also covers the safety and quality of the products and services after the products are brought by the customers (McKendrick, 2014, p.66). In the case scenario, Betty lied to the retail customers and the customers got cheated. Betty's false representation of the products created issues for the Child Toys organisation and it is a punishable offence for the organisation. The organisation can fall under Product safety Standards as this act (Fair Trading Act) covers the sales, hire and exchange of toys under the age of three and if the toys put hazard to the children. Child Toys Pty Ltd neglected to propagate their confirmation in the verbal authoritative concurrence with the clients to keep up the moral and lawful duties. The case between Australia Govt. Vs Dixon can be a statutory case for the situation to make sense of the level of infringement of corporate obligation by Betty and Child Toys Pty Ltd. The association should be represented the criminal activities of deceptive exchange that nearly brought on death for a youngster. While then again, the stagnant authoritative stand of the organisation in acting after death to destroy the disparities is additionally a rupture of corporate risk.
Suggesting ways to take legal actions:
Charles was the Operation Manager of the organisation Child Toys Pty. Ltd and in the March of this year Charles decided to retire and open new toys company. However, Charles has a contract that he cannot compete with Child Toys Pty. Ltd in two years. Charles made partner his wife and they started a new child toys company, named Better Toys Pty. Ltd. Not only that, they started to approach the retail customers of Child Toys Pty Ltd for the selling of the products. In this scenario, Child Toys Pty. Ltd can take action against Charles as it is against the contract that he had signed in his service life. According to Randell-Moon (20132, p.350), Australian Contract laws have different formation related to the agreement, consideration, intention, capacity, formalities and certainty. The contract that has been done between Charles and Child Toys Pty Ltd was employee contract and that must be followed. The contract normally contains acceptance and an offer and Charles does not follow the agreement.
As mentioned by Latimer (2012, p.39), Trade Practices Act 1974 clearly tells that any application of contracts cannot be modified and excluded without any cause, however, liability has to be incurred in breach of certain agreements. This Trade Practices Act 1974 S (2) mentions that immediate breach of contract is offence. In Australian Consumer Law, it is mentioned that misleading behaviour or any kind of deceptive behaviour are a punishable offence. Furthermore, the Contract Review Act 1980 of Australia uncovers the significance of temporary provisos in the legally binding assertion that can be considered as the underlined insinuations of the agreement (Lo, 2012, p.3). For this situation, Charles has extremely damaged the legally binding understanding as he can't surpass his breaking exercises by naming his better half as the proprietor of the contender organisation of Child Toys Pvt Ltd.
As per the Contract Review Act, 1980 a contract is valid as long as the individual is in terms and conditions of the service (Hanrahan, 2013, p.52). In this case, though, this is not binding since the toy has already been sold. However, since the toy had been falsely sold it is the full responsibility of Charles to ensure that the toy sold from Child Toys Pty Ltd is safe. The Contract Review Act, 1980 also suggests that a contract is valid for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years. In this case, it is seen that after five years Charles decided to open up a new organisation. Hence, based on this it is difficult for May to file a legal complaint against Charles as he had served his tenure of the contract before quitting the organisation.
The corporate laws of Australia are useful for the associations to act in consistency with the standards for performing legitimately in the business arrangement. The rules of the Australian organisation law can be utilised to cause an economic improvement in authoritative structure and business exercises for being reasonable with t6he legitimate points of view.
Austlii.edu.au. (2016). AustLII - Australian Taxation Law Library. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/tax/ [Accessed on: 14 Sep. 2016].
Hanrahan, P. F., Ramsay, I., and Stapledon, G. P. (2013). Commercial applications of company law,Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T. and Boersma, M., (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), pp.145-165.