Case Study of Shaun and Craig-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Quetions: 1.Does a partnership between Shaun and Craig exist? In the A- Analysis/Application part of your answer, make arguments both for and against the existence of a partnership. 2.Can Craig leave the partnership in the way he did? 3.Is Craig entitled to the fees from the extra lessons he had been doing? 4.Are the music instruments and equipment partnership property? 5.Who is liable to pay the outstanding rent and electricity? 6.If Ronnie successfully sues3 Shaun and Craig, who is liable to pay that amount of money? Answers: 1.Issue The issue is whether a partnership is exists between Shaun and Craig? Rules The partnership will only establish when there is an intention to carrying a business between two or more than two persons. In the cases of Green v Beesley (1835) and Smith v Anderson (1880) it has been found that a partnership has been exist when two persons or more than two persons has together contributed in a business jointly for the a limited time and make a contract for running a business. The section 9, 10 11 of the Partnership Act 1963 of Australia has been defined the relations of partners where they must bound to their common business and must act behalf of the partners and the rights of the partner to use the credit of firms for the private purposes in the limited partnership. In the partnership there should be a legal entity for creating such partnership (Coffee Jr, Sale and Henderson 2015). Application The basic elements of the partnership are: A valid agreement should be form between the partners. The partners should have intention to carry a business in common intention where a single or isolated transaction could be carried. When the partners are carrying a business therefore they will carry a common business where they have mutual rights, agency, interest and other obligation related to the partnership business. There should be the legal intention to carry the business. According to the case facts Shaun and Craig both has a common intention to carry a legal music business with common and mutual rights. They have started the business with an Australian Business Number (ABN) and registered the following business name: NetMuso. They have also registered the following domain name: www.netmuso.com. Conclusion Therefore a partnership exists between Shaun and Craig. 2.Issue The issue is whether Craig can leave the partnership in the way he did? Rules When a partnership has been formed the partners holds the common and mutual rights and they have several potential liabilities towards their business. The section 9 of the Partnership Act 1963 has stated the relations of partners where they must bound to their common business or the firm. The sec 13 of the Partnership Act 1963 has legislates the liability of partners. When the partners carrying a business under a name and business registration they holds the liabilities of the partnership (Iacobucci and Trebilcock 2013). Application The liability of a partner is defines the duties and obligations towards the business and the other partners. The sec- 9 has already defines the liabilities of the partners towards the business each of the partners hold a separate responsibilities towards the business with legally and financially for every actions towards the other partners and the business also (Owen 2014). According to the case facts Shaun and Craig has jointly started their music business with an Australian Business Number and registration. Therefore both of them not terminate the partnership until and unless other partners has involved in any negligence or criminal activities with the other partners and the business also. Both of Shaun and Craig has a joint bank account therefore when the business has faced any legal obligation then both of the partners should face such issues but they cannot dissolute the partnership. Conclusion Therefore Craig cannot leave the partnership when they are facing the legal obligation. Shaun can take legal actions against him for falsely dissolution of the partnership (Iacobucci and Trebilcock 2013). 3.Issue The issue is whether Craig is entitled to the fees from the extra lessons he had been doing? Rules According to the section 34 of the partnership act legislated where it is the duty of the partners to give accounts towards the other partners. It is the rights of the partners that they must have the accountability for the private profits. The section 35 has defined the duty of partners not to compete with the firm. Therefore if a partner of the firm has making their own profit by using the name of the firm for own benefits then it will be illegal in the partnership business. Application According to the case study, Craig had been doing a number of extra lessons outside of the studio. If he is using the name of the partnership business for the personal profit purposes then it will be completely illegal and unfair according to the partnership business. Craig kept the fees from those lessons to himself. Therefore he is using the business name for his own personal benefits. If Craig did extra lesson outside of the studio without using the name of their partnership business then it will not make any disturbance. However according to the liability in the partnership acts Craig has breach the section 34 and 35 of the Partnership Act. He has been using the business name for getting his personal benefits where he is not sharing such fees which is against of the partnership (Coffee Jr, Sale and Henderson 2015). Conclusion Therefore it can be concluded that Craig has no right to do extra lesson by using the partnership business where he is taking fees for himself which is illegal to the therms of the partnership. 4.Issue The issue is whether the music instruments and equipment are the partnership property or not? Rules The section 26 of the Partnership Act 1963 has stated the property bought with money of the firm which has describes that the properties or assets which has been bought with the money which belongs to the firm unless and until the contrary intention has been appears which has been bought on account of the firm (Owen 2014). Application According to the case facts Shaun has made the lease agreement for their business pay the advanced rental bond of $20,000 which he has been borrowed from his father while Craig has moved his collection of music instruments and equipment which has monetary value of $25,000 to their business place. Though they are in partnership business the music instruments and equipment has owned by Craig and not bought from the account of the business. Therefore though they are in the partnership the music instruments and equipment are not the property of the partnership business (Iacobucci and Trebilcock 2013). In a partnership business equipments are required. It can be owned by the partners of the business from the joint account of the partners. When the properties have been brought by the account of the partnership account then it will be held in the name of the partnership business not the partners individually. But if the properties have been owned by any partner it never belongs to the partnership business though it is using in the business. Therefore according to the case study, Craig has owned the music instruments and equipment. Conclusion According to the case facts the music instruments and equipment are not the partnership property as those are owned by Craig. 5.Issue The issue is who is liable to pay the outstanding rent and electricity Shaun or Craig? Rules In a partnership both the partners hold the duties pay every debt related to the partnership business. When a partnership form it holds the basic element of the partnership which is when the partners are carrying a business therefore they are carrying a common business where they have mutual rights, agency, interest and other obligation related to the partnership business. The sec-13 of the Partnership Act has defined the liabilities of the partners in the partnership business (Owen 2014). In the case of Broadcasters Ltd v Ashtons Nominees Pty Ltd (1979) it has been found that the in a joint venture of partnership the partners will use the profit and share every losses and use the profits for the maintenance of the partnership business. The partners are bound to pay every debts jointly which are related to the partnership business (Coffee Jr, Sale and Henderson 2015). Application According to the fact of the case, Shaun make the lease agreement with the owner of the property but as he is running a partnership business with Craig therefore it s the liability of the both partners to pay every debts which are related with the business. When a business has been formed on the terms of the partnership then it the liability of the both partners that they can share the profits and pay the losses. Therefore it is their obligations to pay every debts of the business. The partners will jointly pay the debts out of their earnings from the business (Iacobucci and Trebilcock 2013). Conclusion Therefore according to the case facts it can be concluded that Shaun and Craig both are liable to pay the outstanding rent and electricity which are related to their partnership business. 6.Issue The issue is who is liable to pay that amount of money Shaun or Craig if Ronnie successfully sues them? Rules According to the section of the Partnership Act has defined the liabilities of the partners in the partnership business where the partners hold the mutual duties and obligation regarding to their business. Therefore when the business face any legal obligation due to the negligence of one partner then all of the partners are liable for such acts as it has been held in the partnership business (Owen 2014). Application As per the case facts Ronnie who is a school aged student took lessons from Shaun. When he took bathroom break he fell in the bathroom which cause severe blow to the head and also broke his jaw. Now he has been undergo complicated surgery on his jaw and sued both Shaun and Craig for $12,000. Therefore as the partnership act though one partner is liable for such negligence which cause damage to the plaintiff but both of the partners are bound to pay such compensation as they are running a partnership business and the accident has been caused in the property of that business (Iacobucci and Trebilcock 2013). Conclusion Therefore according to the case study both Shaun and Craig are liable to pay the compensation amount to Ronnie for his damage. References Broadcasters Ltd v Ashtons Nominees Pty Ltd (1979) 22 SASR 552 Burnett, C., Taylor, C.J. and Wong, J., 2015. Qualification of Taxable Entities and Treaty Protection: National Report for Australia. Coffee Jr, J.C., Sale, H. and Henderson, M.T., 2015. Securities regulation: Cases and materials. Green v Beesley (1835) 2 Bing N C 108 at 112 Green, R., Berti, M. and Sutton, N., 2017. Higher Education in Management: The Case of Australia. In The Future of Management Education (pp. 117-137). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Iacobucci, E.M. and Trebilcock, M.J., 2013. An economic analysis of alternative business structures for the practice of law. Can. B. Rev., 92, p.57. Mann, R.A. and Roberts, B.S., 2015. Business law and the regulation of business. Nelson Education. Owen, S.L., 2014. Allocating Partnership Debt: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. J. Passthrough Entities, 17, p.71. Smith v Anderson (1880) 15 Ch D 247 at 27