LOBO Assessment 2

.docx

School

Western Sydney University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

200183

Subject

Law

Date

May 22, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by AmbassadorEchidnaPerson21

LAWS2010 Law of Business Organisations Autumn 2024 Assessment 2 – Problem-Based Questions Question 1 (10 marks): Advise Daisy as to whether she owes Rob money and whether Rob can claim that they were in a business partnership. (10 marks) Daisy should consult legal counsel regarding Rob's claims and the Letter of Demand. However, the evidence suggests Daisy is unlikely to owe Rob money or be in a business partnership with him. Primarily, Daisy's sole proprietorship of her dog walking business implies no formal partnership with Rob. While Rob proposed the "walk-and-wash" service and aided in its establishment, this alone doesn't constitute a partnership. Typically, partnerships entail formal agreements delineating each partner's rights and duties, of which there is no evidence in Daisy and Rob's case. Furthermore, Rob's diminishing involvement and investment in the "walk- and-wash" service indicate it wasn't a joint venture. Had Rob sustained active participation and shared in profits and losses, partnership might be feasible. However, with Rob's declining commitment, the existence of a partnership becomes improbable. Whether Daisy owes Rob money hinges on any existing agreements. Absent evidence of compensation terms or a formal partnership, Daisy likely isn't obliged to pay. In summary, Daisy should seek legal guidance for a comprehensive assessment. Nonetheless, based on available information, it appears unlikely that Daisy owes Rob money or was engaged in a business partnership with him. Question 2: Advise Ahmed, Rangika and Belinda as to whether Westfields or Uniqlo are liable for their injuries and why. (10 marks) Ahmed intervened in a robbery at Westfields, resulting in injuries to himself. As a Good Samaritan, he acted voluntarily to prevent harm, likely protected from liability under Good Samaritan laws. Liability would likely fall on the perpetrators of the robbery, not Westfields or Uniqlo. 1
After consuming a complimentary mushroom shake provided by Uniqlo, Rangika experienced adverse effects and eventually fainted. Uniqlo may be liable for any harm caused by the shake if it was improperly prepared or contained harmful ingredients, constituting negligence. Belinda suffered injuries from sitting on a couch in Uniqlo's store, which had hazardous cushions. Uniqlo has a duty of care to ensure customer safety. If they were aware or should have been aware of the hazard, they could be liable for negligence in failing to maintain safe premises. In summary, Ahmed is unlikely to have a claim against Westfields or Uniqlo, while Rangika and Belinda may have grounds for claims against Uniqlo based on negligence in providing a harmful product or maintaining safe premises. Question 3 Advise Randy and Mandy and Fred whether they breached any directors’ duties. (10 marks) Randy, Mandy, and Fred may have breached multiple directors' duties under Australian corporate law. - Duty to act in good faith and for a proper purpose: Mandy's clandestine cultivation and sale of magic mushrooms without informing Randy or the company's shareholders suggest a breach of this duty. She pursued personal interests without considering the company's well-being. Fred's involvement in distributing and profiting from the magic mushrooms exacerbates this breach. - Duty to exercise care and diligence: Randy's decision to delegate control to Mandy without adequate oversight could be interpreted as a failure to exercise due care and diligence. Directors are expected to stay informed about company affairs and ensure compliance with the law. Randy's absence allowed illegal activities to occur unchecked. - Duty not to improperly use position or information: Mandy's misrepresentation of magic mushroom sales as button mushrooms on company records constitutes improper use of her directorial position. By misleading the company's records, she sought personal gain to the detriment of the company and shareholders. Additionally, Fred's unauthorized sales further violate this duty. - Duty to prevent insolvent trading: Mandy's investment in magic mushroom production without proper authorization and in defiance of the law could lead to insolvent trading if 2
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help