Electronic assignment coversheet Essay

Except whither indicated, the dress I am submitting in this appointment is my own work and has not been submitted for assessment in other unit.This submission complies with Murdoch Universitys academic integrity commitments. I am cognizant that data approximately plagiarism and associated penalties rotter be implant at http//www.murdoch.edu.au/teach/plagiarism/. If Ihave both doubts or queries about this, I am further aware that I can cont motivate my Unit Coordinator prior to submitting the assignment.I acknowledge that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment reproduce this assignment and provide a imitation to another academic staff member and/or submit a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism-checking military profit. This web-based service may retain a copy of this work for the sole purpose of subsequent plagiarism checking, and has a legal agreement with the University that it will not constituent or reproduce it in whatsoe ver form.I have retained a copy of this assignment.I will retain a copy of the apprisal of receipt of this assignment. If you have not received a receipt inwardly three days, please check with your Unit Coordinator.I am aware that I am making this declaration by submitting this document electronic each toldy and by utilize my Murdoch ID and password it is deemed equivalent to executing this declaration with my compose signature. Optional Comments to TutorE.g. If this is a group assignment, list group members hereMBS502 Trimester 1 2011/2012Assignment problemIn January 2008, three ripe friends, Joe, Moe, and shmo retired from academia. Each is an expert in variant areas of financial management, investment system and hideaway planning. They decided to start a financial advisory service in uptown Boyup bear. Joe contributed $100,000, Moe contributed $50,000 and shmuck contributed $200,000 to dedicate the service.They besides borrow another $50,000 from Joes wife, Flo. The loan was to be repaid by giving her the first $10,000 of the win made each year. It was also agreed that Flo would be the subroutine charabanc on a salary of $45,000 per annum. They bought an appropriate building in Boyup remain self-coloredand, with the airplane propeller left over, they built an extension/granny flat in which Shmo lives. Joe, Moe and Shmo agreed that all(prenominal) major decisions relating to the management of the service would require all three to agree.The day to day management of the office was to be left to Flo. Boyup Brook has a large and growing population of retired farmers and public servants who are always concerned about the health of their retirement nest eggs. Joe, after discussions with Moe, Shmo and Flo, registered the bloodline name, The funds Doctors because he believed they work with surgical precision when it comes to financial decision making. Business cards were duly printed and ties were designed with a pattern of dollar signs. In the young past times the following incidents occurred or were discovered. 1 Joe, Moe and Shmo had, earlier this year, discussed ways to meliorate the services they provided to clients.One of the key areas they identified was their computer system and cyberspace access. They agreed that an investment of up to $10,000 was appropriate and affordable in the current financial climate. While on a recent visit to Perth, Shmo attended the Perth International Education Expo. While at that place he encountered an darkened friend from his academic career, Elmo, who was also retired and was now an agent for Educational figurer Operators (ECO). Shmo told Elmo all about his exciting life in Boyup Brook and about the service he operated with their mutual friends, Joe and Moe.The computer industry had, unornamentedly, also been hard hit by the economic crisis and Shmo sense that a bargain could be obtained. Shmo ordered 4 computers, a virgin server and a 24 month broadband satellite prof its service. The total cost was $20,000. As part of the deal, for signing up at the Expo, Shmo was attached $100 charge of Lotto tickets.As raft would have it, one of these tickets won a share of the first character prize of $1,000,000. When the computer system arrived with the invoice demanding immediate knuckle underment, Flo knew nothing about it and Shmo was unavailable as he was on holiday in the Bahamas.2 The service had a client, Mrs. McTavish, the widow of a prosperous farmer. invariably one for a safe investment, Mrs. McTavish still requireed advise relating to glum Chip shares and investments and normally entirely dealt with Shmo.However, as a result of the recent world economic meltdown and the harrowing stories seen on a modern Affair on TV, Mrs. McTavish was growingin truth concerned about the health of her investments and how to learn up for capital losses. Moe, in Shmos absence, sensed an opportunity and recommended to Mrs. McTavish that she invest in a f amily called Southern set ashore Opportunities (SLO) and to finance this investment by selling $1,000,000 worth of Commonwealth beach and Telstra shares. Mrs. McTavish had always allowed Shmo to take care of the details of selling and transferring bills to the appropriate accounts and investments.This comp whatever, SLO, was one which Moe had established with his latest friend, Poe. It had no other share capital, no bank account and had not carried on all stage business. deep down a week of the transaction, Moe had disappeared and no trace can be rear of him or Mrs. McTavishs money. Mrs. McTavish has already employed one of Perths biggest law of nature blottos and has brought an action against The Money Doctors.Using still alliance Law as it exists in occidental Australia, answer the following 1 Is The Money Doctors a confederacy, and if so, who are the collaborationists? 2 Who is conjectural for the contract with ECO?3 Who is liable to Mrs. McTavish? irresolution one ,The Money Doctors is a partnership by the definition as this activity covered by all four parameters by the partnership as beneath and also according to following rule of Western Australian Law Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit. Partnership roleplay (WA) 1895 S/7 (1) Also the four element of partnership has been carried out,Agreement, as all parties agreed to, start a financial advisory service, pay certain amount of money as initial investment, purchase a building, put up money from a ordinal party. As result there was a conducive agreement among the partners.Business being carried out, according to the mentioned cases the business being carried out and the case of Mrs. MC Tavish and her previous experiences and the made trust in time with Shmo is the strong evidence of having business carried out. In common, all the parties have agreed to offmajor decision together by having all parties opinio n and also they have chosen a name, business card and USD sign on their ties for the partnership together based on common understanding. View of profit, in return of the lend money all parties agreed to pay $ 10,000 each from the profits which shows the partners had a view of profit. psyche two,IRACIssues,Whether all the partners were agreed to invest and im analyze the services provided to client by improving computer systems? Does Shmo have the authority to purchase $20K worth of computer equipment? How ECO dealt with Shmo?Were there lavish evidences of evident authority from ECO to accept the deal? Whether if all the partners are liable to pay against Shmos commitment?Rule of law, each partner is jointly liable for any breach of contract only one right of action against all the partners. (Partnership flirt 1895) S16 WA The case of look Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Ltd 1971 2 QB 711 By deification and based on four elements of partnership it is cl ear there is a partnership and according to above mentioned law (Partnership Act 1895) S16 WA Shmu has the apparent authority to act on behalf of the firm.The case of 1971 2 QB 711 motor hotel has held as the secretory had apparent authority to act on behalf of the company so the company is liable against the made commitment.Application,As Shmo was play acting on behalf of all parties carrying the business cards and wearing the tie with company logo he was having apparent authority to act on behalf of the firm even though the partners agreed to certain level of investment it doesnt concern the second parties and the made commitments.The rules of Law which needed to be considered in this case is section 16 of Western Australian low each partner is jointly liable for any breach of contract only one right of action against all the partners. (Partnership Act 1895) S16 WA. The case is very similar to The case of Panorama Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Ltd 1971 (2 QB 711) which the secretory hired a luxury car for private use and court held that the company is liable to pay for the rented car as the secretory had apparent authority using company facilities and previous experiences.Conclusion,Due to the apparent authority law Every partner is jointly liable for any breach of contract only one right of action against all the partners (Partnership Act 1895) S16 WA. And the case of Panorama Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Ltd 1971 (2 QB 711 The Money Doctor has to pay for Shimo commitments as he had the apparent authority against to supplier and ordered consignment regardless of even Shmu has act over the internal agreement in spite of appearance the partners.Question three,IRAC,Issues,What are the firm responsibilities as monetary Advisory firm? Is the firm as Financial Advisory has the right to act and to accept money from the clients and transfer the blood line? Is the established relationship between Mr s. McTavish and Shmu is based on firm responsibilities and regimen or just been made in time due to personal relationship and successful experiences.Whether if Mrs. McTavish knows Moe is involved with the SLO? Is there any evidence to prove how the transaction took place? Cash or bank to bank. As the SLO has no bank account why McTavish should trust to transfer such amount of money to unknown account? If McTavish gave the money to Moe in cash whether she knows Moe is acting beyond his apparent and actual authority?Rules of law,There are different factors to be considered in this case, As a Financial advisor Money Doctors should not accept cash and additional to that Moe hadbreach the contract and ill-use McTavish trust for the sake of personal ambitions. Therefore in this case below rules of law has to be considered,Where any money or property of a third person is received by one partner, acting within the scope of his substantive or apparent authority in the partnership affairs, and is mis utilise by that partner, and where any money or property of a third person, being as such in the custody of the firm, is misapplied by any partner, the firm shall be liable to make good the loss. (Partnership Act 1895) Section 18.1WA Where by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary grad of the business of the firm, or with the authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any person not being a partner in the firm, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. (Partnership Act 1895) Section17.1 WAApplication,According to Western Australia, Partnership Act law 1895, and Section17/1 if money or property is received by a partner in the scope of the real or apparent authority and misapplied the firm is liable to make good the loss. And Section 18/1if by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, or with the authority of his copartners, loss or injury is caused to any person not being a partner in the firm, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable.In this case partners were agreed to establish a financial advisory service to the clients and in the case of Mrs. McTavish she was allowing the Shmu to make the transactions on her behalf which is out of doors the authority of Financial Advisor. Based on the made trust Mrs. McTavish decided to act the same with Moe which no level of trust been made with Moe and Mrs. McTavish therefore more information is required to make sure if Mrs. McTavish knew Moe is acting beyond his authority otherwise the rules of law (Partnership Act 1895) S18.A WA is applicable.Based on Agency law If agent acts outside his/her actual and apparent authority s/he may be liable to both TP and PR According on the given information the SLO company has no bank account therefore there is no way for Mrs. McTavish to transfer the money to bank account so the only p ossible way is for Moe to take the cash by himself andtransfer the money to another account.There are not enough information and evidences if Mrs. McTavish knew Moe is acting beyond his authority to refer the case to agency law as laws of Agency Law and Partnership Law can be applied in both fields. Therefore based on the actual given information and Partnership law Partnership Act 1895) Section 18.A WA and Partnership Act 1895 Section17.1 WA is applicable.Conclusion,If there were enough evidences that Mrs. McTavish did not know that Moe is acting beyond the actual or apparent authority Moe solely would be liable to Mrs. McTavish as accepting money for the transaction was out of his apparent and actual authority but there are not enough evidences therefore the firm is liable to Mrs. McTavish according to abve mentioned rules of law.References,Partnership Law (WA) Australasian Legal Information Institute http//www.austlii.com coalition symbolize 1895 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895http//www.a ustlii.com/au/legis/wa/consol_act//pa1895154/The case of Panorama Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Ltd 1971 2 QB 711 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 religious sect 1616 . Liability of partnershttp//www.austlii.com/au/legis/wa/consol_act//pa1895154/s16.html(Partnership Act 1895) Section17.1 WAPARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 SECT 1717 . Liability of firm for wrongshttp//www.austlii.com/au/legis/wa/consol_act//pa1895154/s17.htmlPARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 SECT 1818 . Misapplication of money or propertyhttp//www.austlii.com/au/legis/wa/consol_act//pa1895154/s18.html