HI6027 Business and corporation law sample assignment
CASE STUDIES OF BUSINESS LAW AND
Table of Contents
Part A.. 3
Part B.. 4
Part A Summary. 6
Part B Summary. 6
Reference list 8
For making an effective agreement for the contract law and the corporation law, a numbers of factors have to focus for both people. Therefore, the common mistakes for selling of goods as well as the partnership disputes can be avoided by both plaintiff and the defender.
Leaf V International galleries case
In this case, of Leaf v International Galleries  2 KB 86, Plaintiffs of the case accused the defendants for misrepresentation of the information and breach of contract law according to Australian Law of Contracts. This case will be analysed within IRAC format for understanding of the situation and development of comprehensive knowledge.
Leaf, the plaintiff in March 1944, purchased a painting of Salisbury Cathedral made by J. Constable from International galleries. The transaction of painting costed about 85 Euros for the contract was terminated for breach of identity through the court ordered to stay order in the contract and development of the contract as it was mentioned in the last five years with defendant. Internal investigation appeared where the plaintiff auctioned development of the picture and the auction rejected the appeal of being it drawn by mention artist. It resulted in the loss of honour and price. Important obligation was draws by the galley for detailed investigation of the title. In this case, Leaf bought a painting of Salisbury Cathedral from defendant. The defendant and Leaf both was a belief that John Constable, who was a famous English Painter, painted the painting. However, later it was identified that consent painting does not belong to famous painter that this was not by famous English Painter John Constable, and this was by an unknown artist.
A common mistake in a contract generally occurs if both parties are mistaken for the same issue. This is however, tough to find out remedies by common law. In such issues the available law in Australia contains, if both parties purport for entering an agreement regarding a common assumption of erroneous, the agreement for the contract will be therefore void if both parties become agreed with that this was because of a condition for the formation of that said agreement. For such cases, there are ‘Sale of Goods Act, 1983’ are present in Australia for the mistake of quality for the product. Under this section, the person have to deem for having accepted good before lapse of the reasonable time one can retain good for without intimation. Reasonable time failed for this case and therefore, Leaf may not able to void the case.
In case of common mistake in contract, the defenders and the plaintiff both are responsible for the same mistake and in most; no remedies for the common law are available for such cases.
Smith v Hughes (1870) LR 6 QB 597, In this case, Mr. Smith brought a sample for oats and ordered 40 quarter of oats from Mr. Smith following the sample. However, the oats was not as per the sample that was delivered by Mr. Smith (“Smith V Hughes 1871 LR 6 QB 597″, 2019). An avoid Hughes, because of refusing the payment by Mr. Smith regarding the delivery of oats and for the remaining order. In Australia, as numbers of common mistakes are occurs for the purchasing events. In such cases, both the defendant and the plaintiff are equality liable for such mistaken. In Leaf v International Galleries  2 KB 86, Leaf brought a painting from the defenders as a painting of Constable. However, later, this was discovered that, that was a painting of some unknown painter. In this case, both of them were a belief that Constable painted the picture. For such issues, there is ‘Sale of Goods Act, 1983’, that holds the quality of the product. However, in this case, Leaf was barred and he was unable to void the contract due to lapse of the reasonable time in voiding the contract. Therefore, the defenders and the plaintiff have to be more aware during contracting for purchasing and contracting for a good. This is helpful for avoiding such issues for the common mistakes.
In this case, this was held by the court there was a contract between Mr. Smith and Mr. Hughes. There were no such discussion between two parties for the delivery of the old pats and this was revealed that Mr. Hughes might expect the sale d the oats of good and the similar quality. In this case there was a failing short for the total undermining contract that gave an adversely affect for the party for rescind the selling. Therefore, in this case, Leaf v International Galleries  2 KB 86, leaf will be barred as there are much late occurred between the timing of contract and making the decision regarding the quality of product. Moreover, both of them had a belief over that the picture was painted by Constable. Therefore, the mistake was fundamental. Therefore, the identity of the painters was a condition for the case but after making this a good for Leaf, this was late for his claim, and this will be closed.
A numbers of
common mistakes occur during the contract between the defenders and the
plaintiff during formation of the contract. The laws for remedy of such cases
are also rare and most time these are not provided with effective solution.
Therefore, the plenty and the defender both are responsible for the issue such
as Leaf v International Galleries  2 KB 86(“Leaf
V International Galleries 1950 2 KB 86). ‘Sale of
Goods Act, 1983’ is present in Australia for such mistake of quality for
the good (“Sale of Goods Act 1893”, 2019). Following
this act, the person have to deem for having accepted good before lapse much
time one can retain good for without intimation. In this case, there was
too late for claiming by Leaf for the picture that was mistakenly believed by
of them, him, and the seller, that was painted by Constable. Therefore, he
decided to void the contract by claiming the issues. There was late by Leaf for
claiming for voiding the contract for the common mistake by both of them and
there were a common belief of them regarding the painter was the Famous English
painter constable. Hence, during the contracting both of the purchaser and of
seller has to be more careful about the good is provided with the right and
enough information. Therefore, such issues can be reduced.
Mann v D’Arcy  2 All ER 172;  1
In this case, D was one of the three active partners of D’Arcy & Co. As a co partner D made an effective agreement with Mr. according to this agreement M and D’Arcy & Co has to enter into a joint ventures for purchasing and reselling of 250 tones potatoes. This is forming part of the cargo of a vessel. This purchasing and reselling of the potatoes was part of the normal business of D’Arcy & Co. In this agreement, the decision was about the arrangement with M, as he was entered in order to carry in the unusual way for the business. Later all the three partners in D’Arcy & Co became bound by D’s contract. This also includes carrying the unusual business by the firm, as the Merchant shipping co, one partner was buying potato for reselling and doing so exceeded his authority. However, company used to sell regular potatoes for counted as usual way. Therefore, the issue ids if D was effectively bound to the co collaborate for joint ventures of the contract.
A numbers of issues are found in Australia that includes the dispute in business partnership. Different types of mistakes are for partnership contract, and the normal law cannot do sometimes finding out the remedies. In such issues there are Partnership Act 1890 of section five are present in Australia to find out the remedy in such cases (“Partnership Act 1890”, 2019). This law governs for the disputes over the partnership in the Australian business and all the partner has to be liable for their business partnership (“Business Law”, Google Books, 2019).
Following the case of, Wang v Rong  NSWSC 1419, Wang and Rong entered into a partnership for opening a franchisee and therefore Wang claimed that Rong breached for the written partnership. Therefore, court find out the issue that is to be answered in the affirmative for the clear wording for the agreement of the partnership (Wang V Rong  NSWSC 1419 – PCC Lawyers”, 2019). The court also ruled that three collaborate jointly liable for their partnership. Therefore, Mann v D’Arcy  2 All ER 172;  1, in this case, three partner has to be liable for the partnership. Partner dispute in the business is an important issue that has been faced by the different partners for their business. This causes the issue of breach in contract if there are some unusual issue occurs within the partnership and this partnership becomes dispute. For Mann v D’Arcy  2 All ER 172;  1, from the three active partners of D’Arcy & Co, D made an agreement with M. As per the agreement m and D’Arcy & Co was entering for the joint ventures for the purchasing and the reselling of potatoes. Purchasing and selling of potatoes was normal business of D’Arcy & Co. M, was entered to carry the unusual way for the business. All the three partners in D’Arcy & Co was e bound by D’s contract. Thus, the partners have to become more aware and careful for the partnership disputes for avoiding the issues. Partnership Act 1890 of section 5 is available for the remedy of such cases and they have to be liable for the partnership.
A numbers of partnership disputes are finding out in Australia
for different business partnership. The partnership rule for Australia includes
a number of awareness for contracting the partnership. These include the
controlling effect of the partner, partner’s duties regarding the obligations,
distributions, contribution of the additional capital and so on. Therefore,
during making the contract for the business partnership, this issue has to note
by the partner effectively for avoiding the partnership issues in the business
contract. Moreover, improved awareness
between the purchaser and the seller or within the partners are effective for
avoiding such issues of common mistakes and disputes partnership.
“Leaf V International Galleries 1950 2 KB 86; 1 All ER 693”, Youtube (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QlTjY5iSPM>
“Sale Of Goods Act 1893”, Legislation.Gov.Uk (Webpage, 2019) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1893/71/contents/enacted
“Smith V Hughes 1871 LR 6 QB 597”, Youtube (Webpage, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APnD0sJO7gc
“Business Law”, Google Books (Webpage, 2019) <https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FVNVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT42&dq=Mann+v+D%27Arcy+%5B1968%5D+2+All+ER+172,+%5B+1968%5
Wang V Rong  NSWSC 1419 – PCC Lawyers”, Pcclawyers.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019) <http://www.pcclawyers.com.au/news-centre/265-wang-v-rong-2015-nswsc-1419>
Act 1890”, Legislation.Gov.Uk (Webpage, 2019) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/53-54/39/contents
 “Sale Of Goods Act 1893”, Legislation.Gov.Uk (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1893/71/contents/enacted>.
 “Smith V Hughes 1871 LR 6 QB 597”, Youtube (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APnD0sJO7gc>.
 “Leaf V International Galleries 1950 2 KB 86; 1 All ER 693”, Youtube (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.punjabassignmenthelp.com
 “Business Law”, Google Books (Webpage, 2019) <https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FVNVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT42&dq=Mann+v+D%27Arcy+%5B1968%5D+2+All+ER+172,+%5B+1968%5D+1+WLR+893&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjky7zMmZjiAhWH6nMBHfK6Dc0Q6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Mann%20v%20D’Arcy%20%5B1968%5D%202%20All%20ER%20172%2C%20%5B%201968%5D%201%20WLR%20893&f=false>.
 “Partnership Act 1890”, Legislation.Gov.Uk (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/53-54/39/contents>.
 Wang V Rong  NSWSC 1419 – PCC Lawyers”, Pcclawyers.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019) <http://www.pcclawyers.com.au/news-centre/265-wang-v-rong-2015-nswsc-1419>.