Law 2301
- Submitted by: jk1993
- Views: 137
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 01/16/2016 06:29 PM
- Pages: 10
- Report this Essay
LAWS2301 take home assignment
Weijing Wang
21234574
Part A.
i) Issues
* Whether the contract is valid
* If the contract is valid if it were witnessed by a third party
Rule/ Relevant LAW
S128(3)
The assumptions may be made even if an officer acts forges a document, in connection with the dealings.
S128 (4)
A person is not entitled to make an assumption in section 129 if at the time of the dealings they knew or suspected that the assumption was incorrect.
Application
S128 (3)
James was made managing director of the company, also was authorised to arrange the purchase. Therefore, James is clearly an officer of the company.James signed his own name and forged Nick’s signature as directors of the company and to purchase custom-made furniture from Ickea, in which indicates it is in connection with the dealings.(Story)
S128 (4)
This element is satisfied because James’s actions were witnessed by an Ickea Representative in Ickea’s office.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, for the first issue the court will likely find the assumption could be relied on so that contract is valid under s128 (3) of the act. For the second issue the court will not likely find the contract is valid under s128 (4) of the act.
ii) Issues
* The main issue is whether Friendbook is liable for the loan.
Rule/Relevant Law
S126 (1)
A company’s power to make a contract may be exercised by an individual acting with the company’s express or implied authority and on behalf of the company.
Ostensible or apparent authority: there are three requirements need to be satisfied
1. Representation that agent had authority
2. Made by persons who had actual authority to manage the company
3. Third party relied on representation
s129 (2) a person may assume that anyone who named in ASIC records has
a) been duly appointed
b) has authority to exercise the powers and perform the duties customarily exercised or performed by a director.
c)...
Weijing Wang
21234574
Part A.
i) Issues
* Whether the contract is valid
* If the contract is valid if it were witnessed by a third party
Rule/ Relevant LAW
S128(3)
The assumptions may be made even if an officer acts forges a document, in connection with the dealings.
S128 (4)
A person is not entitled to make an assumption in section 129 if at the time of the dealings they knew or suspected that the assumption was incorrect.
Application
S128 (3)
James was made managing director of the company, also was authorised to arrange the purchase. Therefore, James is clearly an officer of the company.James signed his own name and forged Nick’s signature as directors of the company and to purchase custom-made furniture from Ickea, in which indicates it is in connection with the dealings.(Story)
S128 (4)
This element is satisfied because James’s actions were witnessed by an Ickea Representative in Ickea’s office.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, for the first issue the court will likely find the assumption could be relied on so that contract is valid under s128 (3) of the act. For the second issue the court will not likely find the contract is valid under s128 (4) of the act.
ii) Issues
* The main issue is whether Friendbook is liable for the loan.
Rule/Relevant Law
S126 (1)
A company’s power to make a contract may be exercised by an individual acting with the company’s express or implied authority and on behalf of the company.
Ostensible or apparent authority: there are three requirements need to be satisfied
1. Representation that agent had authority
2. Made by persons who had actual authority to manage the company
3. Third party relied on representation
s129 (2) a person may assume that anyone who named in ASIC records has
a) been duly appointed
b) has authority to exercise the powers and perform the duties customarily exercised or performed by a director.
c)...