Company Law

Company Law

Question Two

Issue: Whether it was right for their friend to recommend the company’s name as Tatts r Us Ltd

Rules: The two parties agreed to make their company affairs private and confidential.

The also made their company a proprietary company making them the only directors and members of the company under CA

Application: Having Brad suggest how Billy and Angeline should name their company shows a breach of agreement and exposure of the company. This indicates that one of the two directors broke the deal.

Naming the company Tatts r Us Ltd meant that the company had to be a limited company, which said that each shareholder would be limited to their contribution to the company’s total shares. This was not what the two partners had agreed.

Conclusion: I don’t agree with Brad’s advice since it was in breach of the initial agreements the two parties had made.

Issue: Whether the company has to reinstate Antonio

Rules: According to S140 (1), the constitution rules that apply to the company have an impact on the company, members, and the company secretary. Meaning that the rules can be enforced by the members and not just the company

Antonio Gonzales has constitutionally been appointed as the master tattooist for life..

Application: Antonio has a constitutional right to enforce his employment since he had constitutionally been made the company’s master tattoo for life.

Conclusion: The Company has to reinstate Antonio since the constitution serves as a contract between the members and the company

Question Three Answer

Issue: Whether jack possessed power with contract agreement whose transaction is over $100,000, the legality of Beanstalk limited constitutional ability to acquire produce outside Queensland, and if  Beanstalk Ltd’s constitution availability in the public record meant that Giant Ltd should have read its content.

Rules: The company’s constitution has laws that prohibit agricultural products grown elsewhere apart from Queensland.

The board of directors possesses the company’s policy, which requires the approval of the board for transactions above $100,000.

No rule states that interested companies should read the constitution of the contracting company. However, S126 of CA has approved that another company can enter into a contract through an agent

Application: Jack broke constitutional law by transacting an amount above $100,000 without seeking approval from the board. He also broke another rule limiting the company from agreeing to sell beans from Giant Ltd.

Giant Ltd is not obligated by any laws to read the constitution of the contracting company; however, Jack being a director makes him an agent of the company, thus agreeing with Giant Ltd and Beanstalk Ltd legal.

Conclusion: The board of directors was right for canceling the agreement since they had not followed the proper procedures in creating the agreement. Giant Ltd could Sue Beanstalk, according to S126 of CA.

References

www.studocu.com

Hannigan, B (2018). Company Law. Oxford University Press, USA.