Assignment was answered in detail, the quality of work was more than satisfaction and easy to understand. The assignment was given back to me in the quickest time possible.
The key issue in the given case is whether Jack is entitled to the share of profits from the licensing of the copyright.
According to the contract in the given case between the three people the contract resembles a contract of partnership with sharing of ownership and sharing of profits. Whether Jack is a partner depends on whether he signs the partnership contract for the computer game. If he does then he is a partner in the contract (Burnett and Burnett, 2007). According to section 6 of the Partnership Act, in the case of a partnership, the profits are shared and ownership is also shared. Further since Jack was an integral part in the making of the computer game it is essential that he is given his share of profits.
In this given case, even though Jack did not attend the meetings for three months, being a partner he is entitled to get his share of profits.
Since Jack is entitled to receive his share of profits and he did not receive the same from the other two partners, the legal remedies available to Jack include damages for the breach of the Partnership agreement between the three partners. Jack can also file for an injunction in the court of law to restrict the licensing of the copyright of the program.
The issue in the given case was whether the parent company has the duty to care for the employees’ of the subsidiary company.
According to the given circumstances, a similar case needs to be mentioned. In the case of Chandler v Cape plc (Chandler v Cape plc, ), Justice William held that in order to determine the duty to care, the three stage test needs to be conducted as in the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, ). These tests are on foreseeability, proximity and whether the case was fair.
In the given case, the risk from asbestos for foreseeable and the company had knowledge of the working conditions and hence they owed a tortuous duty to care. Hence under the given circumstances the company owed a duty to care for the employee.
After it is proved that there exists a duty to care it has to be proved whether there was a breach of that duty to care. In the given case, it can be observed that the company was responsible for the failure that resulted in the escape of asbestos dust. Further, knowing of the risk involved in working with asbestos the company should have taken measures to protect the health of the employees. Hence there was a breach of duty and the company is liable to pay damages to the employee for the breach of duty.
In the given case the issue is regarding the fraud and misappropriation made by the managing director and the chances of legal action against him or against all other directors.
According to the general rule, any director shall not apply the property of the company for his personal benefit or any other person without the authority of the company. When a director takes identifiable assets without proper authority of the company it amounts to misappropriation (Wiffen, 1994). The director has the duty to protect the confidentiality of the company.
Students prefer to buy homework online from MyAssignmenthelp.com because they find our services most effective and reliable in every aspect. Our services prove to be the best solution for students who often search, can someone do my homework for me or can experts write my homework for me. Being a reputed homework help website, we have introduced the safest money transferring modes for making payments. This is why students don't have to ask is it safe to pay someone to do my homework.