COURSE Diploma of Business & Enterpri (3113C0207)
UNIT OF STUDY Business Law (3113C0207U02)
微信定时群发
ASSESSMENT TITLE Assignment 2-Offshore
ASSESSMENT TYPE Essay and Ca Studies
Instructions
∙ Weighting This asssment is worth 20% of your final result for this unit of study相反的词语
∙ Due Date End of week 13
∙ This assignment has 4 questions. Each question is marked out of 10 and the total marks will be converted to a mark out of 20. All questions must be answered.
∙ You must work in a team (group) of up to 3 persons for questions 2 to 4 (ca study questions). All students’ names must be included on the cover sheet and all will receive the same mark.
∙ The essay question (question 1) may be done individually or as a group. If done as a group, all students’ names must be included on the cover sheet and all will receive the same mark.
∙ Define legal terms, u legal principles and ca law analysis where possible.
设计的方法
带佳字的男孩名字∙ You should include a standard VU assignment cover sheet and the marking schedule (page 2) with your completed assignment.
∙ Write all answers in your own words and do not copy your answers from other students, text books or internet. Plagiarism will incur vere disciplinary action.
∙ If you do not pass this assignment (i.e. if you do not achieve a mark of 20) you will be able to do it again and resubmit it, but you will only be able to achieve a mark of 10 or a pass for this cond attempt
∙ If your assignment is late it will be marked as a resubmission.
Resources required
∙ Student Manual, Student Workbook and Student readings
Marks allocation for Assignment 2
Student 1 | Group/Class | |
First Name | | Last Name | |
VU Student Number | | Date | |
| | | |
Your asssment will be graded according to the following marking guide. Plea enter your name, VU student number, Group and Date in the spaces provided and return the sheet below with your submission.
Student 2 | Group/Class | |
First Name | 降糖的好方法 | Last Name | |
VU Student Number | | Date | |
| | | |
Student 3 | 灰蓝扁尾海蛇Group/Class | |
First Name | | Last Name | |
VU Student Number芡实价格 | | Date | |
| | | |
| Performance / Asssment Criteria Total possible marks for this assignment are 40, bad on the solutions and the criteria below for each question. This is converted to a mark out of 20 which is the final grade for this asssment task. | Question | Maximum Possible mark | Mark awarded |
| 9-10 A thorough understanding demonstrated with all parts of the question answered. Detailed explanations given and examples provided if necessary. Good understanding of legal concepts and the connections between them. Evidence of detailed rearch. 7-8 A good understanding with all parts of the assignment answered. Explanations given but lacking some detail. Some basic understanding of legal concepts and brief definitions provided. Evidence of rearch. 5-6 A basic knowledge and understanding given but lacking in detailed explanation. An attempt to answer the points but lacking in clarity. Not all points addresd or some lacking depth. Some basic understanding of legal concepts and brief definitions provided. Evidence of basic rearch. Below 5 A poor attempt. Some parts of the question not answered fully. Some points not addresd. Poor explanations. Little or no attempt to address the points and a failure to define, understand and apply legal concepts. Poor rearch skills. | 1 | 10 | |
| 2 | 10 | |
| 3 | 10 | |
| 4 | 10 | |
Pass/Resubmit | Teacher Comment | Final mark 英文词汇20 |
| | |
| | | | | | | |
QUESTION 1:
A company’s parate existence is known as the ‘veil of incorporation’. A company’s operators are protected from liability for company obilig ations. However the veil can be pierced if misconduct can be proved. The operators of the company are not personally liable for company debts. The parate existence of company was first recognized in the ca of Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22. The principle was applied in the New Zealand ca of Lee’s v Lee’s Air Farming [1961] AC 12.
Salomon is the UK a shoemaker opened a shoe store. In 1892, Husin under the UK Companies Act, the establishment of a limited liability company Salomon. Company has ven shareholders: Salomon, Salomon wife and their five children. The first step: Salomon Company issued 20,007 copies of shares, which accounted for 20,001 shares of Husin, the other six people per each 1 share. As a result, the company t up Salomon neither violates the provisions of the Companies Act, the company can guarante
e absolute control of Husin. Step Two: Salomon was founded after the first board of directors decided to £ 38,782 "astronomical" The acquisition of Husin's shoe store. Of which £ 20,000 as Husin subscribed capital stock, total 20,001 shares; £ 10,000 debt owed to him as a company by the company's asts as collateral; remaining £ 8,782 in cash. The third step, Salomon companies began to borrow, borrow a total of 7,000 pounds, are not cured.
Catherine Lee’s husband Geoffrey Lee formed the company through Christchurch accountants, which worked in Canterbury New Zealand. It spread fertilirs on farmland from the air, known as top dressing. Mr. Lee held 2999 of 3000 shares was the sole director and employed as the chief pilot. He was killed in a plane crash. Mrs. Lee wished to claim damages of 2,430 pounds under the Workers’ Compensation Act 1922 for the death of her husband, and he needed to be a worker, or any person who has entered into or works under a contract of rvice with an employer whether remunerated by wages, salary or otherwi. The company was insured for worker compensation.
A company is distinct from its directors, shareholders and creditors. This was recognized by the court in the decision of Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22. In this ca, Salomon was a boot manufacturer and carried on the business as a sole trader. He then incorporated a company to give his sons and wife a share of the business. The company purchad Salomon’s business for an excessive price. Salomon was both the shareholder and the creditor of the company. The company then had finical difficulties and did not recover its financial problems and was finally wound up. The liquidator wanted to pay uncured creditors a head of Mr. Salomon and the lender who held debentures. The liquidator argued that the lender’s debenture is valid as it reprented a loan to Salomon and not to the company. The count holds that the company was a legal parate entity even if there was only one main shareholder. A person could be both the shareholder and the creditor of the company. Thus, the court decided that the debenture issued to Salomon was valid and he should be paid ahead of other creditors. The additional debts belonged to the company and Mr. Salomon was not personally liable for the debts. The wider importance of the ca is that it claimed a company is a parate le
gal entity even of there was only one shareholder. A company was en as an artificial person parate to the individual people who made up its directors or shareholders.