AUSTRALIAN Company Law - the 4 step process and short answer questions Essay

AUSTRALIAN Company Law - the 4 step process and short answer questions - Essay Example Under the Act as quoted above, there are three major entities defined in relation to the case and these are Catering WA as a corporate entity, Jasmine Trendy as a partner in the firm, and Adam, who acts as another partner. Given the positions of these three major entities, it would be noted from the case that s17 of the Act holds none else but Jasmine, who is a partner within the company liable for her acts, which has brought upon breaches of the company’s internal constitution. In a manner that Catering WA was never officially notified of the actions or intentions of Jasmine, the condition of the law that ‘if a partner in a firm other than an incorporated limited partnership’ becomes binding and excludes Catering WA from any wrong doing. In inference, it is only under a circumstance where Catering WA had acted in the negotiation by giving Jasmine the matching audacity to undertake the said purchases that the company would have had itself binding to the committed breach of use of the company money in making external purchases. On the part of Adam, there is only one premise under which he could be found liable in this instance and that is if premise (2) of s17 is found to apply in his case. In the said provision of the Act, it is stated that: But because Adam is outside Western Australia, he may well have a justification that even though the constitution of the company is in the public domain, he never had personal access to it and so could not be affected by the liability because he the partner ‘knew about the breach of trust.’ In the recent case Wright Prospecting Pty Limited -V- Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited [No 9] [2010] WASC 44, a practice of â€Å"prohibition in temporary reserves on entry into any arrangement to transfer the property without ministerial consent† was permitted primarily under the s 7 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) because the partner in the firm, which in this case was the Ministry