Australian Law For Livestock Companies

Issue

Describe about the Australian Law for Livestock Companies.

The current case discusses about the issue relating to lease agreement. After concluding this assignment we would come to know what happens when anyone backs out after signing the lease agreement. This case is about a company named as MOO, a livestock company. Company wanted to expand its business so it was considering opening a branch office in Ballarat. The entire responsibility relating to this was given to Tom who was a business development manager in the company. Even his name and role was prominently displayed on the company website as on business cards and stationery. Company had assign Tom to go to Ballarat to enquire on retail locations available to let and then report back to head office with a recommendation. So after reaching Ballarat Tom had evaluated several places which belong to competitors and available premises. After verifying various places Tom had finalized a place which was owned by Bob. The land finalized by Tom had the heritage look and feel and was a central location of a particular vacant retail premises.  According to him this location was the best suited location for the company. Hence Tom had signed a lease agreement with Bob on behalf of his company. But the problem was when the agreement was sent to the company via mail then company refused to acknowledge the lease agreement. This was not correct from the part of the company since Tom had already signed the agreement. Now Bob wants to take legal action against the company since first company’s Business Development Manager had signed the agreement and the company refuses to acknowledge the agreement.

Rules:

As per Section90 of the Leases Act 2001, tenant has the right to terminate the lease by giving a minimum thirty days’ notice. In the following situations tenant can terminate the lease: (Austliieduau, 2016)

If the premises, building containing the premises has been damaged in material way.

If either the lessor has refused to repair the damage or the lessor unreasonably departs from or takes no reasonable action in relation to the premises.

The condition of the premises is so bad that it cannot be used by the lessee with the reasonable time or a period which should not be more than a year.

As per Agency Act 2003, a person has the right to carry on the business as a real estate agent if he provides a real estate service for a principal  for reward. If any money is received by a license agent as bond under this act then would not be considered as trust money. When a principal is not present in the scenario then an agent has all the rights to take decisions on behalf of the principal. In such situations agents act as a proxy for the principal. all the powers which lies with the principal will also be applicable in the case where an agent deals on his behalf. Then the decisions taken by the agent would be considered as final. (Actgovau, 2016)

Rules

Application:

the provisions of the Agency Act 2003 needs to be applied in this case. In the given case Tom was assigned a job to finalize a new place for their office in Ballarat. He had done his job correctly by finding a good location for the office. The place finalized by him was of Bob’s. The place had a heritage look and feel and had a central location of a vacant retail premises. Tom was a Business Development Manager of the company, which means he has the right to take decisions on behalf of the company. His name and role was also mentioned in the website of the company, this shows that he was in the top most position of the company. Hence on the basis of his power he had finalized the location for company’s news office. He had even signed a lease agreement with Bob but unfortunately when the lease agreement was emailed to the company then company refused to acknowledge the agreement. Company has taken a wrong decision in this case. When company have given an authority to its employee then it cannot simply violate it. Even when a company does not like the decision which is taking by its employee then some action needs to be taken by the company against that employee. But due to the issue between the company and its employee, third party should not suffer. In this Bob is suffering due to this. When Tom has agreed to signed the lease agreement with Bob then it is company’s duty to abide by the agreement. (Legallineca, 2016) This lease agreement is just like a contract between two parties. But her actual party has not signed a contract; instead actual party has assigned a person on its behalf who will deal in this contract. Now when the concerned person has signed the contract then it is duty of the original owner that it should abide by the contract. But company had refused to acknowledge the contract. Bob has the complete right to take action against the company since company has breached the contract. But here Tom is also at fault since he should have at least confirmed from the company before signing the contract. There was no confirmation taken by Tom from the company which was also not correct. So this case is an issue between the company and its employee. So because of their internal issue third party Bob should not suffer. The given case is very similar to the case of CB Cold Storage Pty Ltd v Morgan Street Investments Pty Ltd (Retail Tenancies) 2014 VCAT 773. (Bostongrpcomau, 2016)

Application

Conclusion:

as per the given provisions of the Lease Act 2001 the company is at fault by refusing the acknowledge the lease agreement.   This was an issue between a company and its employee so because of this Bob should not suffer. Bob has the complete right to take actions against the company since company had breached the contract. Company needs to compensate Bob for refusing to abide the agreement. Hence as per the provisions of the Leases Act, Bob has the complete right to take action against the company.

In the given case Anne and Kevin were in a de facto relationship. Anne used to order groceries from TPM supermarket where Kevin had a credit account. Whenever she used to purchase from the supermarket, amount was deducted from Kevin’s account. Issue was that Kevin had specifically told Anne not to order any expensive item from the market. But one day Anne had ordered an item amounting to $2,000 from a new store named as RPG shop where Kevin had a credit account. At the time of payment Kevin had refused to pay the amount and even refused to pay for any other further purchases even from TPN supermarket.

Rule: as per Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975, a person will be in a de facto relationship with another person only in the following situations: (Austliieduau, 2016)

• Both the persons should not be legally married to each other.
• They should also not be related by any family relation.
• Apart from all the other relationships they have a relationship as a couple who is living together on a genuine domestic basis.

As per this Act a de facto relationship is possible between two persons of different sexes and between two different persons of same sex. It is even possible when a person is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship. (Family court of australia, 2016)

Application:

it is mentioned in the assignment that both Anne and Kevin is in a de facto relationship. This means that both of them are staying together but not married to each other. For married couples it is very easy to prove that they are related to each other, but for the persons who are in de facto relation it is very difficult for them, to prove their relation. Such couples need to divulge their personal habits and sexual proclivities to satisfy the threshold requirements before consideration of their substantive claim for property and financial settlement. In this case we don’t need to prove that Kevin and Anne are in de facto relation, instead we need to advice the two super market for non-receipt of payment. Now since both of them are in de facto relation both is liable for each other as per Family Law Act 1975. (Nswgovau, 2016)There was an agreement between them that Anne would order groceries from TPN Supermarket where Kevin had his credit account. Kevin would make the payment. But once when Anne had ordered a priced product Kevin refused to make the payment to RPG shop and to TPN market. Both the market owners have the right to take action against Kevin. Anne has breached the agreement which she had with Kevin. So, because Anne’s fault third party should not suffer. If one party has breached the terms of the agreement then action needs to be taken against the aggrieved party. But if third party is also involved in the case then such actions should be taken which should not affect the third party involved. But in this case TPN and RPG market were suffering. Hence the action taken by Kevin was not correct as per the Family Law Act 1975. ( Aifsgovau, 2016)

Conclusion

Conclusion:

Kevin has the right to take legal action against her partner Anne but he cannot stop the payment of TPN and RPM shops. He should make the payment to both of them and then later on he should recover the amount from Anne. This conclusion was based on the decisions given in the case of Gissing v Sheffield and Jonah v White. (Dlapipercom, 2016)

3. As per Agency Act 2003, a person has the right to carry on the business as a real estate agent if he provides a real estate service for a principal  for reward. If any money is received by a license agent as bond under this act then would not be considered as trust money. When a principal is not present in the scenario then an agent has all the rights to take decisions on behalf of the principal. In such situations agents act as a proxy for the principal. all the powers which lies with the principal will also be applicable in the case where an agent deals on his behalf. Then the decisions taken by the agent would be considered as final

An Agent is a person who is authorized by the principal to act on the principal’s behalf and under the control of principal. In many of the cases a contract is entered by an agent who is authorized to act on behalf of the principal. Agents generally have complete rights and control which a principal should have. A principal appoints an agent because they themselves are not expert in the field. So agents are being hired to act on behalf of their principal. If complete authority is not given to them then it would be difficult for them to take any decision. Every time principal will not be available, so many of the decisions have to be taken by the agent himself. But decisions taken should have a positive impact on principal. (Lawteachernet, 2016)

To prove that an agent is acting on behalf of a principal, a principal must prove that agent acts for him and the agent must also accept the authority to act on it. An agent may also have implied authority. Such authority arises when an agent is placed in a particular position by his principal. In the case of Hely Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd (1968) agent who was appointed had implied authority to make all the contracts that a manager in that position has. So, in such cases if these agents are authorized actually or with seals then the contracts can be made valid. But if they do not execute as per the principal’s requirements then contract can be voidable or invalid. In such cases agents have to take responsibility for the loss. So these are the reasons why contracts created by agents are also considered to be legal in law. It has to be considered as legal because most of the time agents are dealing with third parties on behalf of their pricncipal. (Us legal, inc, 2016)

References

Aifsgovau. (2016). Aifsgovau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca-paper24.pdf

Austliieduau. (2016). Austliieduau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/lara2001233/s90.html

Austliieduau. (2016). Austliieduau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/lara2001233/s117.html

Austliieduau. (2016). Austliieduau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html

Actgovau. (2016). Actgovau. Retrieved 16 September, 2016, from https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2003-20/current/pdf/2003-20.pdf

Bostongrpcomau. (2016). Bostongrpcomau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.bostongrp.com.au/documents/court-and-vcat-tribunal-decisions/CB Cold Storage Pty Ltd v Morgan Street Investments Pty Ltd _Retail_ Tenancies_ [2014] VCAT 773.pdf

Dlapipercom. (2016). DLA Piper. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.dlapiper.com/en/asiapacific/insights/publications/2014/03/avoiding-multimillion-dollar-liability

Family court of australia. (2016). Familycourtgovau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships

Lawteachernet. (2016). Lawteachernet. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/contract-made-by-agents.php

Legalvisioncomau. (2015). LegalVision. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://legalvision.com.au/breaking-a-commercial-lease-agreement

Legallineca. (2016). Legal Line. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/breaching-a-commercial-lease

Nswgovau. (2016). Nswgovau. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/what-happens-when-your-relationship-ends

Us legal, inc. (2016). Uslegalcom. Retrieved 5 September, 2016, from https://agency.uslegal.com/authority-of-agents