Whether the venture that exits amid Samuel, Thomas and Peta is a partnership or not?
Any person intends to take a business in Australia can do so in the form of sole trade ship, partnership or in the form of a company.
A partnership is one of the most promising business structures that are prevalent in Australia. a partnership is a relationship which exists between two or more person who with common intention decides to carry on a business of continuous nature. Once a partnership is established then each partner is the agent of each other and that of the partnership firm and vice versa. The law of partnership and its elements are discussed in Smith v Anderson (1880). (Cassidy 2006)
But, at times it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish whether a business structure is a partnership or not. In order to do so, it is necessary that all the elements that constitute a partnership must be analyzed. The same are as follows:
Two or more persons
In any partnership the basic requirement that is needed to form any kind of partnership is that there must be minimum two and maximum twenty persons to form a partnership and is rightly held in Playfair Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Ryan (1969). An individual can only form a sole trader ship or company but for a partnership two persons is must.
Common intention
Common intention signifies that all the partners must aim at the same thing at the same time. The partners who carry on the business must comply with their acts in order to achieve the objective for which the business is formulated by them and is rightly held in Re Ruddock (1879). The law does not establish that all the partners must indulge in the activities of the business, rather, partners can be non active and sleeping also, but, still the intention amid them must be common in nature.
Carrying on business
Once two or more person join together with the common intention then it is necessary that the business which they are carrying must be of continuous nature or at least the parties intend to carry out the transaction of continuous nature. A single act can also be construed as an action of partnership provided the parties intent to consider the same as an act of partnership and is held in Keith Spicer Ltd v Mansell [1970].
Profit sharing
The partners to the partnership firm must carry on the business with common intention and the business of continuous nature with the aim to earn profits and share them amid themselves. The ratio amid which the profit must be shared is as per the terms of the partnership, but, it is relevant that the profits must be shared amid them to make any association as a partnership in nature. The concept of profit sharing as one of the elements of partnership is rightly held in Wise v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1903] .
Thus, when all the above elements are formulated amid the partners, that is, two or more persons, common intention, carrying on business and profit sharing then the acts are carried out by the person in the form of partnership.
The law is now applied to the facts of the case.
An internet business of reselling products over the vast internet market is intended to be initiated by Samuel, Thomas and Peta. Now, in order to establish a partnership business amid them it is necessary that all the elements of partnership must be comply with.
It is submitted that the business that is intended to be carried on is by three persons, that is, Samuel, Thomas and Peta. Thus, the first requirement of two or more person to form partnership is met.
Now, all the three that is, Samuel, Thomas and Peta, intent to carry on the business of reselling products over the vast internet market. The main aim of the business was that they buy the goods and products from the companies which are at the stage of winding up and they then resell the products so that they are able to earn the profits. Now, the main intention of the three is common. They want to indulge in the business of buy and sell of product so that they can make financial gains. So there is presence of common intention in order to hold partnership amid them.
Further, Peta invested $100,000 equity in her home to finance the start-up costs of the new venture. All the three are actively taking part in the running of the business. The business is considered to be intend by all the three on continuous basis from the fact that they decided that when the profit will be earned then they will not pay anything to Peta and the $6000 per month. Thus, the intention of paying an amount to Peta per moth depicts the intention of the parties that they want to continue the business. So the business is carried on continuous basis.
Last they decide to share the profits amid themselves, as Peta is given $6,000 per moth and Samuel and Thomas were paid as per the consultancy arrangements with the venture. It does not make any difference as to what names they gave to the profit sharing but it is necessary that the profits must be divided amid them.
There is compliance of all the elements of partnership.
Conclusion
To conclude it can be submitted that all the three persons, that is, Samuel, Thomas and Peta have initiate the business with common intention and a business of continues nature with the aim to share profits. Thus, there exists partnership amid them.
2.The Corporation Act 2001 specifies that a any business acquires the status of a company only when the same is incorporated as per the registration process submitted by ASIC and is held in (Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897]. A company is an artificial person and does not have heart or soul. So, in order to make any company work, it is necessary that there must be some officers or persons who act on behalf of the company. Section 9 of the Act defines a company director as a person who is appointed or acts in the capacity of the director including de facto and shadow directors. These director gain power under section 198A of the Act to act on behalf of the company. (Latimer, 2011)
A director has power to act on behalf of the company but there are certain responsibilities that must also be cater by every company director. These are nothing but the duties that must be furnished by a company director. Every company director are obligated to comply with their duties both under common law and statutory law.
Duty under common law
When a director is appointed then he must carry the acts on the behalf of the company now these acts must be undertaken by the director will due care and diligence. The acts must be such so that the interest of the company must be secured and the acts must be carried like a diligent prudent man would have carried in the same circumstances. Care and diligence is comply with by the directors of the company when the acts are for proper purpose. Diligence, care and precautions must be carried out at every step which are taken on behalf of the company. In Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd v Morley (1990) it was rightly held that the duty to have knowledge over the financial matters of the company is an act of care and diligence which must be cater by the director of the company at every level.
This duty of care and diligence is the sole responsibly of the company directors. If the director delegate this duty to his subordinate still the duty rests on the shoulders of the company director alone. No director can state that he is ignorant of the facts of the company and if does no then the same are the acts of carelessness and no application of diligence on the part of the director.
Every decision of the director must be informed and he must question all the relevant information upon which he is relying. It is his duty of care and diligence to question any information prior relying upon the same and is held in AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992). If the director of the company is making himself to rest at such a position so that he is not able to manage the company then he is not acting in careful and diligent manner.
Duty under statutory law
The Corporation Act 2001 also imposes a duty of care and diligence by enacting section 180 of the Act.
Section 180 (1) of the corporation Act 2001 submits that the acts of the director of the company must be carried out with all due care and diligence like a normal prudent man in the like situation’s the acts must be carried out in the interest of the company and for proper purpose. This duty of care and diligence is imposed not only on the directors of the company, but on every officer of the company.
If the director is found to be in violation of section 180 (1) of the Act, then he can protect himself by availing the business judgment rule that is prescribed under section 180 (2) of the Act. if the director is acting in good faith for the interest of the company, for proper purpose, the decision is informed, then, the detector is not found to be in violation of the duty of care and diligence as mention under section 180 (1) of the Act.
Penalties
If any company director or the officers is found to be in violation of the duty of care then the Corporation Act 2001 has imposed penalties upon such defaulting directors which includes the civil penalty of $2, 00,000, disqualification from the post or compensation, if the duty is violated with reckless and dishonest intention then jail can be imposed of 5 years along with fines.
Duty under common law
This duty of good faith is imposed on the directors of the company under common law. It is the fiduciary duty that is imposed on the directors of the company and must be catered considering the interest of the company. In Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) it was held that while undertaking the actions if the director thinks that the actions are not in the interest of the company then the good faith is violated. The duty of good faith is also established in Walker v Wimborne (1976).
The acts that are carried out while catering his duty of good faith must be carried out in a manner as what a normal prudent man would have done in the same circumsttbces and is held in Farrow Finance Company Ltd (in liq) v Farrow Properties Pty Ltd (in liq) (1997).
When the company director is considering the interest of the company then it compr8ises of the interest of the investors and shareholders and creditors of the company and is held in Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (in liq) (1986).
Duty under statutory law
The Corporation Act 2001 also imposes a duty of good faith by enacting section 181 of the Act.
Section 181 of the corporation Act 2001 submits that the acts of the director of the company must be carried out with good faith like a normal prudent man in the like situation’s the acts must be carried out in the interest of the company and for proper purpose. The acts of the director must be coupled with honesty and bona fide intention. If the acts are carried out by the director in good faith but the same is not the interest of the company then the duty is violated.
Penalties
If any company director or the officers is found to be in violation of the duty of good faith then the Corporation Act 2001 has imposed penalties upon such defaulting directors which includes the civil penalty of $2, 00,000, disqualification from the post or compensation, if the duty is violated with reckless and dishonest intention then jail can be imposed of 5 years along with fines.
Reference List
Books/Articles/Journals
Julie Cassidy (2006) Concise Corporations Law, Federation Press.
Latimer, P. (2011) Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited
Case Laws
AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992) 7 ACSR 759.
Farrow Finance Company Ltd (in liq) v Farrow Properties Pty Ltd (in liq) (1997) 26 ACSR 544.
Keith Spicer Ltd v Mansell [1970] 1 All ER 462;
Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (in liq) (1986) 4 NSWLR 722.
Playfair Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Ryan (1969)
Re Ruddock (1879) 5 VLR.
Smith v Anderson (1880) 15 Ch D 247;
Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd v Morley (1990) 2 ACSR 405
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22;
Wise v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1903] AC 139.
Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 285.
Walker v Wimborne (1976) 137 CLR 1
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download