Question 1
Issue
Tech Gadget Ltd. (TGL) is a company, which has three directors Susan Main, Paul Smith and Ben Jones and they have been the directors of the company since it was incorporated in 2010. Apart from this all the three members each have equally 200 shares of the company. Moreover, when Paul is on holiday, he appointed Victoria Peters to act in his position. Furthermore, the issue is to recognize which person and entities are a director of the TGL company for the purposes of the director’s duties in section 181-183 of the corporation Act 2001 (Cth).
Law
Corporation Act 2001(Cth) Section 181-183 signifies the duties of the directors in a company, their power within the company and their duties responsibilities (Barker, 2007). …show more content…
Question 2
Issue
In the case study, Victoria wanted to become a director of TGL. Thus, she proposed Miracle Batteries Pty Ltd to the board stating that it is the sole supplier of the batteries for all the devices. She did know anything about the batteries and neither she researched on it (Oppenheim, Jennings and Watts, 2008).
Law
According to the Corporations Act, the main duty of the director is to provide appropriate guidance to other members and work for the interests of the stakeholders. The director should provide true and fair information in front of the board and stakeholders. Victoria provided inappropriate information to the board of directors because she had no idea about the Miracle Batteries.
Application
The main duty of the director is to exercise its duties and power with diligence and care. The duty of the director is to exercise the duties and powers in the best interest of the organization. Victoria has breached the duties of the directors as per the Corporation Act (White, 2009). …show more content…
Conclusion
The overall case study is judged to be showing the proper management of the laws as per the case is being provided in this case and also the insolvent trading is being carried out with breaching the duties.
Question 5
Issue
A new product was designed by Edward which was the i-shoe. The company's director thought that the product would be a superior product and help them to compete in the market. The board made an agreement that they will pay $500,000 to Edward for the invention. The company approached the bank for finance, but they declined. The company did not pay Edward. s
Law
Edward can take legal actions against the directors for breaching of the section 588G. The directors have breached section 588G of corporation Act, and they are personally liable for the incurred debts. The directors may have to pay personally to Edward (Thomas,
Issue
Tech Gadget Ltd. (TGL) is a company, which has three directors Susan Main, Paul Smith and Ben Jones and they have been the directors of the company since it was incorporated in 2010. Apart from this all the three members each have equally 200 shares of the company. Moreover, when Paul is on holiday, he appointed Victoria Peters to act in his position. Furthermore, the issue is to recognize which person and entities are a director of the TGL company for the purposes of the director’s duties in section 181-183 of the corporation Act 2001 (Cth).
Law
Corporation Act 2001(Cth) Section 181-183 signifies the duties of the directors in a company, their power within the company and their duties responsibilities (Barker, 2007). …show more content…
Question 2
Issue
In the case study, Victoria wanted to become a director of TGL. Thus, she proposed Miracle Batteries Pty Ltd to the board stating that it is the sole supplier of the batteries for all the devices. She did know anything about the batteries and neither she researched on it (Oppenheim, Jennings and Watts, 2008).
Law
According to the Corporations Act, the main duty of the director is to provide appropriate guidance to other members and work for the interests of the stakeholders. The director should provide true and fair information in front of the board and stakeholders. Victoria provided inappropriate information to the board of directors because she had no idea about the Miracle Batteries.
Application
The main duty of the director is to exercise its duties and power with diligence and care. The duty of the director is to exercise the duties and powers in the best interest of the organization. Victoria has breached the duties of the directors as per the Corporation Act (White, 2009). …show more content…
Conclusion
The overall case study is judged to be showing the proper management of the laws as per the case is being provided in this case and also the insolvent trading is being carried out with breaching the duties.
Question 5
Issue
A new product was designed by Edward which was the i-shoe. The company's director thought that the product would be a superior product and help them to compete in the market. The board made an agreement that they will pay $500,000 to Edward for the invention. The company approached the bank for finance, but they declined. The company did not pay Edward. s
Law
Edward can take legal actions against the directors for breaching of the section 588G. The directors have breached section 588G of corporation Act, and they are personally liable for the incurred debts. The directors may have to pay personally to Edward (Thomas,