1. Andy and Lucy are carrying on a business which each person provide 50% of the capital to contribute the business. Andy is responsibility for treating horses and farm animals while Andy specialises in treating domestic pets. Because of its partnership structure, they will receive a share of net profit if they are operating with a view of making profit. In conclusion, Andy and Lucy are running a partnership as defined by section 1 (1) of the Partnership Act 1891 (SA) as they applied the theory in carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.
2. To operate the business under the name “Pet, Paradise”, Lucy and Andy must follow section 23 of Business Name Registration Act 2011 No.126. Besides, they must satisfy the rule of marking …show more content…
Is that legal correct when Lucy want to get more profit share based on her working hours? Partners can agree as to how profit and losses will be share in a Partnership Agreement (PARTNERSHIP ACT 1891 - SECT 24, 2017). If partners did not have a deal how they share profit or loss, they should be shared in equal. The Partnership Agreement between Andy and Lucy does not include this deal. As a result, the profit must be share equally. Besides, if Lucy want to get more profit in accordance with hours works, she need to seek to introduce a term into a new Partnership Agreement with Andy as to how the profit will be shared. In conclusion, Lucy is entitled to half share of the …show more content…
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109Inconsistency of laws, 2017). The law of South Australia requires a married couple have at least 5 years together to conduct a divorce while the Commonwealth law is just a year. This is a inconsistency situation. In conclusion, she can divorce her husband because her married year is satisfy the Commonwealth law. If the law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth one will be more prevail, and the rule will not be invalid in the extent of the inconsistency (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109Inconsistency of laws,
2. To operate the business under the name “Pet, Paradise”, Lucy and Andy must follow section 23 of Business Name Registration Act 2011 No.126. Besides, they must satisfy the rule of marking …show more content…
Is that legal correct when Lucy want to get more profit share based on her working hours? Partners can agree as to how profit and losses will be share in a Partnership Agreement (PARTNERSHIP ACT 1891 - SECT 24, 2017). If partners did not have a deal how they share profit or loss, they should be shared in equal. The Partnership Agreement between Andy and Lucy does not include this deal. As a result, the profit must be share equally. Besides, if Lucy want to get more profit in accordance with hours works, she need to seek to introduce a term into a new Partnership Agreement with Andy as to how the profit will be shared. In conclusion, Lucy is entitled to half share of the …show more content…
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109Inconsistency of laws, 2017). The law of South Australia requires a married couple have at least 5 years together to conduct a divorce while the Commonwealth law is just a year. This is a inconsistency situation. In conclusion, she can divorce her husband because her married year is satisfy the Commonwealth law. If the law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth one will be more prevail, and the rule will not be invalid in the extent of the inconsistency (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109Inconsistency of laws,