0 Download9 Pages / 2,204 Words
Add in library
Click this icon and make it bookmark in your library to refer it later.
GOT IT
1.There are number of ways through which creditor can recover the payment of a debt from individual who refuses or cannot pay the debt. It is necessary that individuals must be aware of their rights and obligations related to the recovery of debt.
Section 197 of the Corporation Act 2001 deal with the personal liability of directors in discharging the liabilities incurred by trustee companies. There is famous case law in this regard Hanel v. O’Neill[1]. It was the first case which considers the scope and circumstances of director’s liability in pursue of this section. December 2003, South Australian Supreme Court state the various interpretations related to this section. The net result of this interpretation is that, number of directors of trustee companies faced uncertainty related to their potential personal liabilities.
The corporation Act 2001 imposes additional responsibility on the directors of the company which act as trustee of the company. Generally, trustees of the company have right to indemnity against the assets and property of the trust for the purpose of discharging companies liability which they incurred as trustee of the company. However, in case it is not possible to call the right of indemnity then Corporation Act impose this liability on the directors of the trustee company, for any unsatisfied liabilities which is incurred by company in its capacity as trustee. Therefore, Section 197 of the Act imposes potential liability on a director of the company when it incurs liability while acting as trustee of the company[2].
In other words, directors of the corporate trustee will be held personally liable only in case right of indemnity of company as trustee has been lost because of the unfair conduct on the part of the company or because of the restriction in the terms of the trust that purports to deny the right of indemnity.
Section 197 of Corporation Act 2001 states that directors of the company are liable for debts and other obligations which incurred by company as trustee, and as per this section if person is a director of the company when company incurs a liability while acting or purporting to act as trustee, then director is liable to discharge whole or a part of the liability if the company:
has not discharged or not able to discharged the liability or part of the liability, and
is not entitled to be fully indemnified against the liability out of trust assets because of the following reasons that is corporation breach the trust, corporation does not act within the scope of its powers as trustee, and any term of the trust limit or deny the right of company to be indemnified against the liability.
The liability of person is extent to both individually or jointly with the corporation and any other person also who is liable under this Subsection. It must be noted that person is not held liable under this subsection just because there are not sufficient assets out of which the corporation can be indemnified.
Person is not held liable under subsection (1), if such person would be entitled to have been fully indemnified by any other director against the liability imposed on all the directors of the company been trustees when the liability was incurred. This Section does not apply to a liability incurred outside Australia by a foreign company[3].
This section is not applied to a liability incurred by registered Australian body outside its place of origin, and it is not applied to a corporation that is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation[4].
In the present case, Michael and Claire smith are the shareholders and directors of Woodcraft Pty Ltd, and this company is the trustee of the Smith Family Trust. On behalf of the trust company runs the business of furniture. As per the trust deed, trustee is authorized to engage in wholesale and retail trade of furniture of all types, kind and nature.
Later, Michael and Claire decided to expand the business of the company, and the company order timber of the amount of $20000 from Forest Products Pty Ltd. They borrow $500,000 from Eastpac Bank Ltd from which they purchase the stud, and also borrowed $2,500,000 from National Finance Ltd and purchase a commercial property.
Business of the company fails and company becomes unable to pay its debt. Trust owned the assets worth $5000 and directors of the company have substantial assets. Eastpac received the trust deed from the company, before approving the loan of the company.
In this case Section 197 is applicable, and as per this section if person is a director of the company when company incurs a liability while acting or purporting to act as trustee, then director is liable to discharge whole or a part of the liability if the company has not discharged the liability or part of the liability, and is not entitled to be fully indemnified against the liability out of trust assets because of the following reasons that is corporation breach the trust, corporation does not act within the scope of its powers as trustee, and any term of the trust limit or deny the right of company to be indemnified against the liability[5].
In this case company is not able to discharge its liability and it is not possible to fully indemnify the liability against the trust because directors of the company do not act within the scope of powers.
Therefore, creditors can seek amount from the directors of the company, and directors of the company are personally liable for the debts of the company.
2.Generally, company enters into a contract through an agent with an outsider, and that agent act on behalf of the company. Common law established the indoor management rule in the case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand[6]. In this case, Court allowed the outsider to make the assumption that officer of the company complied with the rules of the company. In this case, directors give the guarantee to their bankers for borrowing the amount, and they did not complying with the requirement related to shareholders approval. Later, company avoids payment on the grounds of getting shareholder’s approval. In this Court rejected this ground and stated that bank has right to assume that directors of the company complied with the internal rules of the company and borrowings were duly authorized.
This decision is known as the "rule in Turquand's case" and latterly as the "Indoor Management Rule". This rule was approved by High Court in case Albert Gardens (Manly) Ltd v. Mercantile Credits Ltd, and High Court make it comments in the case of Northside Developments Pty Ltd v. Registrar-General. Later this case becomes an important consideration for the purpose of this rule because of the comments made in this rule[7][8].
Company made number of contracts while conducting their business operations and those persons who entered into contract on behalf of the company has power to bind the company by their actions. This power to bind the company is known as authority, and authority can be of three types actual, implied, and ostensible. In case, Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd Judges[9] stated that directors of the company have the authority to bind the company, but in case directors of the company does not have authority than there is no contractual relationship between the parties. There are some situations when representative of the company including director who does not have authority to enter into a contract with third party, then in such situations there is no binding contract between the parties and the company because person does not have any authority. Court stated that person who is conducted business with the company must ensure that internal rules of the company are complied. Later, this rule was considered as inappropriate rule because person including directors who is representing the company is the well-known face of the company and third party has believe that person complied with the rules of the company and because of this consequences are faced by the third party. Therefore, for the purpose of solving this issue Court considered that if third party believes that all internal rules are compiled and representative has the authority to enter into contract then such contract is legally binding on parties[10].
There is exception to this rule that is Doctrine of constructive notice, actual knowledge, due inquiry, and forgery. If any exception is present then party cannot use the indoor management rule as defense.
In the present case, Tom is the company secretary of Midas Ltd, and as per the constitution of the company all contracts which are signed on behalf of the company must be approved by the board of directors of the company. Constitution further stated that once contract approved by the board then it must be signed by company secretary or one director of the company.
Tom convince jack (director of the company) to enter into a contract for the purpose of purchasing land for the company, and sign the contract with him for the purchase of the site of the company. Both Tom and Jack signed the contract, and later this contract was not approved by the board of directors of the company.
In this case, there is binding contract because director and company secretary are authorized to act on behalf of the company and as per this rule if third party believes that all internal rules are compiled and representative has the authority to enter into contract then such contract is legally binding on parties. Therefore, there is binding contract on the company.
Paul james & paul Molnar, (2005), Personal liability of directors of corporate trustees, https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2005/june/personal-liability-of-directors-of-corporate-trustees, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Dino Travalgini, (2007). Corporate Recovery: Corporations Act – Section 197, https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/54966/Corporate+Commercial+Law/Corporate+Recovery+Corporations+Act+Section+197, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Lang thai, DIRECTORS’PERSONAL LIABILITY- IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 197 ACCEPTABLE WHEN COMPARED WITH HANEL V O’NEILL?, https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&edata-src=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMsNG-p7_VAhXC6Y8KHTXaCywQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.deakin.edu.au%2Findex.php%2Fdlr%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F302%2F306&usg=AFQjCNERh3KdUWttCsF37QUOBMXCT2Te7w, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Lexology, The 'indoor management rule' explained, < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469212cf-f6d8-458d-8a5d-2722c5d4ba99>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Austlii, (2002), Protecting Outsiders to Corporate Contracts in Australia, < https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2002/22.html>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
David morrinson, The Continued Role of the Common Law Indoor Management Rule Due Inquiry Exception, < https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_356124/UQ356124_OA.pdf?Expires=1502004654&Signature=WCKFylx-o93psyc8EkLQ7akKpP8WPGdU8uGgkVyHZWYfq5QxNsfAAj~WR3qzs9QxWcTVkXfGe0KQEHsc7nOxkpLnfMXWySTxFTAfMQVpKybkR0gSyDs5QW1JhIVyxp370I76zhxJ3pClBbBOD0oCL4TB1YJU0dLJ9KftanMHtlwTYkZ1sWaNYVH1MBqHt83VIP8F6K5qnJBxASqfod1IZxrdoVg1YvXsA32D2KeTOjPyR5-9u7Lq8-2f2HPWtf-VrBqz8NLPAMpdZphngkfmS0UA-pt77qV9oXR0fgvdfpBs~QbdOqIcQ5q4lVjGcKgh-CyRAA6fJX1SPXz-8ytiCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ<, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549.
Hanel v. O'Neill, (2003) 48 ACSR 378; (2004) 22 ACLC 274; (2003) SASC 409 (SC of SA 2003).
Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 119 ER 886.
Corporation Act
Hanel v. O'Neill, (2003) 48 ACSR 378; (2004) 22 ACLC 274; (2003) SASC 409 (SC of SA 2003).
Paul james & paul Molnar, (2005), Personal liability of directors of corporate trustees, https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2005/june/personal-liability-of-directors-of-corporate-trustees, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Corporation Act 2001- Section 197.
Dino Travalgini, (2007). Corporate Recovery: Corporations Act – Section 197, https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/54966rporate+Commercial+Law/Corporate+Recovery+Corporations+Act+Section+197, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Lang thai, DIRECTORS’PERSONAL LIABILITY- IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 197 ACCEPTABLE WHEN COMPARED WITH HANEL V O’NEILL?, https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&edata-src=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMsNG-p7_VAhXC6Y8KHTXaCywQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.deakin.edu.au%2Findex.php%2Fdlr%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F302%2F306&usg=AFQjCNERh3KdUWttCsF37QUOBMXCT2Te7w, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 119 ER 886.
Lexology, The 'indoor management rule' explained, < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469212cf-f6d8-458d-8a5d-2722c5d4ba99>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Austlii, (2002), Protecting Outsiders to Corporate Contracts in Australia, < https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2002/22.html>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549.
David morrinson, The Continued Role of the Common Law Indoor Management Rule Due Inquiry Exception, < https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_356124/UQ356124_OA.pdf?Expires=1502004654&Signature=WCKFylx-o93psyc8EkLQ7akKpP8WPGdU8uGgkVyHZWYfq5QxNsfAAj~WR3qzs9QxWcTVkXfGe0KQEHsc7nOxkpLnfMXWySTxFTAfMQVpKybkR0gSyDs5QW1JhIVyxp370I76zhxJ3pClBbBOD0oCL4TB1YJU0dLJ9KftanMHtlwTYkZ1sWaNYVH1MBqHt83VIP8F6K5qnJBxASqfod1IZxrdoVg1YvXsA32D2KeTOjPyR5-9u7Lq8-2f2HPWtf-VrBqz8NLPAMpdZphngkfmS0UA-pt77qV9oXR0fgvdfpBs~QbdOqIcQ5q4lVjGcKgh-CyRAA6fJX1SPXz-8ytiCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ<, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
1.There are number of ways through which creditor can recover the payment of a debt from individual who refuses or cannot pay the debt. It is necessary that individuals must be aware of their rights and obligations related to the recovery of debt.
Section 197 of the Corporation Act 2001 deal with the personal liability of directors in discharging the liabilities incurred by trustee companies. There is famous case law in this regard Hanel v. O’Neill[1]. It was the first case which considers the scope and circumstances of director’s liability in pursue of this section. December 2003, South Australian Supreme Court state the various interpretations related to this section. The net result of this interpretation is that, number of directors of trustee companies faced uncertainty related to their potential personal liabilities.
The corporation Act 2001 imposes additional responsibility on the directors of the company which act as trustee of the company. Generally, trustees of the company have right to indemnity against the assets and property of the trust for the purpose of discharging companies liability which they incurred as trustee of the company. However, in case it is not possible to call the right of indemnity then Corporation Act impose this liability on the directors of the trustee company, for any unsatisfied liabilities which is incurred by company in its capacity as trustee. Therefore, Section 197 of the Act imposes potential liability on a director of the company when it incurs liability while acting as trustee of the company[2].
In other words, directors of the corporate trustee will be held personally liable only in case right of indemnity of company as trustee has been lost because of the unfair conduct on the part of the company or because of the restriction in the terms of the trust that purports to deny the right of indemnity.
Section 197 of Corporation Act 2001 states that directors of the company are liable for debts and other obligations which incurred by company as trustee, and as per this section if person is a director of the company when company incurs a liability while acting or purporting to act as trustee, then director is liable to discharge whole or a part of the liability if the company:
has not discharged or not able to discharged the liability or part of the liability, and
is not entitled to be fully indemnified against the liability out of trust assets because of the following reasons that is corporation breach the trust, corporation does not act within the scope of its powers as trustee, and any term of the trust limit or deny the right of company to be indemnified against the liability.
The liability of person is extent to both individually or jointly with the corporation and any other person also who is liable under this Subsection. It must be noted that person is not held liable under this subsection just because there are not sufficient assets out of which the corporation can be indemnified.
Person is not held liable under subsection (1), if such person would be entitled to have been fully indemnified by any other director against the liability imposed on all the directors of the company been trustees when the liability was incurred. This Section does not apply to a liability incurred outside Australia by a foreign company[3].
This section is not applied to a liability incurred by registered Australian body outside its place of origin, and it is not applied to a corporation that is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation[4].
In the present case, Michael and Claire smith are the shareholders and directors of Woodcraft Pty Ltd, and this company is the trustee of the Smith Family Trust. On behalf of the trust company runs the business of furniture. As per the trust deed, trustee is authorized to engage in wholesale and retail trade of furniture of all types, kind and nature.
Later, Michael and Claire decided to expand the business of the company, and the company order timber of the amount of $20000 from Forest Products Pty Ltd. They borrow $500,000 from Eastpac Bank Ltd from which they purchase the stud, and also borrowed $2,500,000 from National Finance Ltd and purchase a commercial property.
Business of the company fails and company becomes unable to pay its debt. Trust owned the assets worth $5000 and directors of the company have substantial assets. Eastpac received the trust deed from the company, before approving the loan of the company.
In this case Section 197 is applicable, and as per this section if person is a director of the company when company incurs a liability while acting or purporting to act as trustee, then director is liable to discharge whole or a part of the liability if the company has not discharged the liability or part of the liability, and is not entitled to be fully indemnified against the liability out of trust assets because of the following reasons that is corporation breach the trust, corporation does not act within the scope of its powers as trustee, and any term of the trust limit or deny the right of company to be indemnified against the liability[5].
In this case company is not able to discharge its liability and it is not possible to fully indemnify the liability against the trust because directors of the company do not act within the scope of powers.
Therefore, creditors can seek amount from the directors of the company, and directors of the company are personally liable for the debts of the company.
2.Generally, company enters into a contract through an agent with an outsider, and that agent act on behalf of the company. Common law established the indoor management rule in the case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand[6]. In this case, Court allowed the outsider to make the assumption that officer of the company complied with the rules of the company. In this case, directors give the guarantee to their bankers for borrowing the amount, and they did not complying with the requirement related to shareholders approval. Later, company avoids payment on the grounds of getting shareholder’s approval. In this Court rejected this ground and stated that bank has right to assume that directors of the company complied with the internal rules of the company and borrowings were duly authorized.
This decision is known as the "rule in Turquand's case" and latterly as the "Indoor Management Rule". This rule was approved by High Court in case Albert Gardens (Manly) Ltd v. Mercantile Credits Ltd, and High Court make it comments in the case of Northside Developments Pty Ltd v. Registrar-General. Later this case becomes an important consideration for the purpose of this rule because of the comments made in this rule[7][8].
Company made number of contracts while conducting their business operations and those persons who entered into contract on behalf of the company has power to bind the company by their actions. This power to bind the company is known as authority, and authority can be of three types actual, implied, and ostensible. In case, Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd Judges[9] stated that directors of the company have the authority to bind the company, but in case directors of the company does not have authority than there is no contractual relationship between the parties. There are some situations when representative of the company including director who does not have authority to enter into a contract with third party, then in such situations there is no binding contract between the parties and the company because person does not have any authority. Court stated that person who is conducted business with the company must ensure that internal rules of the company are complied. Later, this rule was considered as inappropriate rule because person including directors who is representing the company is the well-known face of the company and third party has believe that person complied with the rules of the company and because of this consequences are faced by the third party. Therefore, for the purpose of solving this issue Court considered that if third party believes that all internal rules are compiled and representative has the authority to enter into contract then such contract is legally binding on parties[10].
There is exception to this rule that is Doctrine of constructive notice, actual knowledge, due inquiry, and forgery. If any exception is present then party cannot use the indoor management rule as defense.
In the present case, Tom is the company secretary of Midas Ltd, and as per the constitution of the company all contracts which are signed on behalf of the company must be approved by the board of directors of the company. Constitution further stated that once contract approved by the board then it must be signed by company secretary or one director of the company.
Tom convince jack (director of the company) to enter into a contract for the purpose of purchasing land for the company, and sign the contract with him for the purchase of the site of the company. Both Tom and Jack signed the contract, and later this contract was not approved by the board of directors of the company.
In this case, there is binding contract because director and company secretary are authorized to act on behalf of the company and as per this rule if third party believes that all internal rules are compiled and representative has the authority to enter into contract then such contract is legally binding on parties. Therefore, there is binding contract on the company.
Paul james & paul Molnar, (2005), Personal liability of directors of corporate trustees, https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2005/june/personal-liability-of-directors-of-corporate-trustees, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Dino Travalgini, (2007). Corporate Recovery: Corporations Act – Section 197, https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/54966/Corporate+Commercial+Law/Corporate+Recovery+Corporations+Act+Section+197, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Lang thai, DIRECTORS’PERSONAL LIABILITY- IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 197 ACCEPTABLE WHEN COMPARED WITH HANEL V O’NEILL?, https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&edata-src=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMsNG-p7_VAhXC6Y8KHTXaCywQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.deakin.edu.au%2Findex.php%2Fdlr%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F302%2F306&usg=AFQjCNERh3KdUWttCsF37QUOBMXCT2Te7w, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Lexology, The 'indoor management rule' explained, < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469212cf-f6d8-458d-8a5d-2722c5d4ba99>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Austlii, (2002), Protecting Outsiders to Corporate Contracts in Australia, < https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2002/22.html>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
David morrinson, The Continued Role of the Common Law Indoor Management Rule Due Inquiry Exception, < https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_356124/UQ356124_OA.pdf?Expires=1502004654&Signature=WCKFylx-o93psyc8EkLQ7akKpP8WPGdU8uGgkVyHZWYfq5QxNsfAAj~WR3qzs9QxWcTVkXfGe0KQEHsc7nOxkpLnfMXWySTxFTAfMQVpKybkR0gSyDs5QW1JhIVyxp370I76zhxJ3pClBbBOD0oCL4TB1YJU0dLJ9KftanMHtlwTYkZ1sWaNYVH1MBqHt83VIP8F6K5qnJBxASqfod1IZxrdoVg1YvXsA32D2KeTOjPyR5-9u7Lq8-2f2HPWtf-VrBqz8NLPAMpdZphngkfmS0UA-pt77qV9oXR0fgvdfpBs~QbdOqIcQ5q4lVjGcKgh-CyRAA6fJX1SPXz-8ytiCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ<, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549.
Hanel v. O'Neill, (2003) 48 ACSR 378; (2004) 22 ACLC 274; (2003) SASC 409 (SC of SA 2003).
Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 119 ER 886.
Corporation Act
Hanel v. O'Neill, (2003) 48 ACSR 378; (2004) 22 ACLC 274; (2003) SASC 409 (SC of SA 2003).
Paul james & paul Molnar, (2005), Personal liability of directors of corporate trustees, https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2005/june/personal-liability-of-directors-of-corporate-trustees, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Corporation Act 2001- Section 197.
Dino Travalgini, (2007). Corporate Recovery: Corporations Act – Section 197, https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/54966rporate+Commercial+Law/Corporate+Recovery+Corporations+Act+Section+197, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Lang thai, DIRECTORS’PERSONAL LIABILITY- IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 197 ACCEPTABLE WHEN COMPARED WITH HANEL V O’NEILL?, https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&edata-src=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMsNG-p7_VAhXC6Y8KHTXaCywQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.deakin.edu.au%2Findex.php%2Fdlr%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F302%2F306&usg=AFQjCNERh3KdUWttCsF37QUOBMXCT2Te7w, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 119 ER 886.
Lexology, The 'indoor management rule' explained, < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=469212cf-f6d8-458d-8a5d-2722c5d4ba99>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Austlii, (2002), Protecting Outsiders to Corporate Contracts in Australia, < https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2002/22.html>, Accessed on 5th August 2017.
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549.
David morrinson, The Continued Role of the Common Law Indoor Management Rule Due Inquiry Exception, < https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_356124/UQ356124_OA.pdf?Expires=1502004654&Signature=WCKFylx-o93psyc8EkLQ7akKpP8WPGdU8uGgkVyHZWYfq5QxNsfAAj~WR3qzs9QxWcTVkXfGe0KQEHsc7nOxkpLnfMXWySTxFTAfMQVpKybkR0gSyDs5QW1JhIVyxp370I76zhxJ3pClBbBOD0oCL4TB1YJU0dLJ9KftanMHtlwTYkZ1sWaNYVH1MBqHt83VIP8F6K5qnJBxASqfod1IZxrdoVg1YvXsA32D2KeTOjPyR5-9u7Lq8-2f2HPWtf-VrBqz8NLPAMpdZphngkfmS0UA-pt77qV9oXR0fgvdfpBs~QbdOqIcQ5q4lVjGcKgh-CyRAA6fJX1SPXz-8ytiCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ<, Accessed on 5th august 2017.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2018). Personal Liability Of Directors. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/personal-liability-of-directors.
"Personal Liability Of Directors." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/personal-liability-of-directors.
My Assignment Help (2018) Personal Liability Of Directors [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/personal-liability-of-directors
[Accessed 31 May 2020].
My Assignment Help. 'Personal Liability Of Directors' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/personal-liability-of-directors> accessed 31 May 2020.
My Assignment Help. Personal Liability Of Directors [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 31 May 2020]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/personal-liability-of-directors.
MyAssignmenthelp.com possesses 3000+ highly skilled cheap essay writers, who respond to students' popular search 'can someone do my essay at a cheap rate online'. They evaluate student's requirements and fulfill them perfectly. Hence, students don't need to waste their time in searching, 'who will write my essay at cheap rate'. They can straight convey their requirements and have the paper written by highly qualified experts.
Answers: Answer 1(a) Issue: Was there any contract formation between Avinash and the café? What are the essentials of a valid contract? Relevant law There are four major essentials that determine the validity of a contract. These major essential elements of a valid contract are: Offer Acceptance Consideration The intention of creating a legal relationship Offer: An offer can be referred to as a statement of expr...
Read More
Answer: Introduction: It is to be determined whether a valid contract was formed between The Bolton Connect Pty Ltd and Rofi in relation to the chosen case study considering the clause of unconscionable conduct According to Knapp, Crystal & Prince (2016), it can be said that action or statement will be considered to be unconscionable conduct if it is unreasonable and defies good conduct. However, it is to be stated that that this provision ...
Read More
Answer: Introduction The constitution is explained to be the set of legal rules and regulations that govern the relationship between the ruled and the ruler in a state. It is said that the United Kingdom does not have a detailed constitution like any other country. It is recognized as the “so-called” Constitution of The United Kingdom. It has the principles and laws of the country. The United Kingdom has an uncodified or unwr...
Read More
Answers: Introduction Employment law also is known as labor law, which helps to maintain the relationship between an employee and an employer. There are several laws and regulations made to enhance the relationship of the employee with their employers and unions. In case these laws are not followed then illegal liabilities may occur. The enforcement of these laws are done by the government agencies and they are legislative executive and...
Read More
Answer: Answer to A Explain the postal rule: In the contract law, there are certain rules mentioned for making a valid offer and acceptance. When an offer has been made and the same has accepted, it will form a contract between the two parties. However, the acceptance must be communicated. In Felthouse v Bindley, it has been held that silence cannot be treated as a valid acceptance. The general rule regarding the acceptance is that it should...
Read More
Just share Requriment and get customize Solution.
Orders
Overall Rating
Experts
Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.
Using reliable plagiarism detection software, Turnitin.com.We only provide customized 100 percent original papers.
Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat.
Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.
Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.
184 Order Completed
96% Response Time
416 Order Completed
95% Response Time
610 Order Completed
100% Response Time
154 Order Completed
97% Response Time
Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.
Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.
Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.
Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.
Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.
Our Mission Client Satisfaction
I would recommend it to my friends, easy to contact. always on time and offering good prices
Australia
The work was phenomenally done, and it was even praised. I highly recommend this site, the service and help, altogether, I would not have passed any classes if it weren\'t for you guys and gals
Australia
The assignment was very well written, and the teacher was very pleased and praised the work.
Australia
For once, what I asked for was delivered without any hassle and going back and forth. Whichever writer did the assignment, thank you so much for revamping my assignment based on the feedback that was provided.
Australia
