http://www.studymode.com/subjects/souter-v-shyamba-pty-ltd-page1.html Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)- company is a separate legal entity Lee v Lee’s Air Farming (1961) Case Summary: The facts disclosed that in 1954‚ Mr. Lee had formed the respondent company carrying on the business of crop spraying from the air. Mr. Lee owned 2‚999 of the company’s 3‚000 shares. Apart from that‚ he also was the company’s governing director whereby he had appointed himself as the only pilot of the company
Premium Employment
Winch-It Industries Pty. Ltd. Board Report Sarah Ahmed Tutor: Suzanne Fawcus Date Due: May 6‚ 2011 Executive Summary As the board have agreed to go international‚ there are many International Human Resource Management aspects to be taken into consideration before Winch-it Pty. Ltd expands their business. There are several areas of interest to be analysed that requires specific attention to assist in commencing an international
Premium Human resource management Management Recruitment
Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd[1]‚ the court of appeal was faced with complex difficulty concerning the employee’s authority either the authority of the employee is within the scope of employment or not which may resulted in vicarious liability. Material Facts The appellant‚ Mr. Sprod who was acting drunk and assaulting inside a pizza shop‚ prompted the owner of the shop to call security guards from the respondent‚ Public Relations Oriented Security Ptd Ltd. The assault
Premium Security guard Employment Acts of the Apostles
Case study6.2 Aroma Australia Pty Ltd goes to Japan Overview of case study Aroma Australia Pty Ltd is a successful company which performed very well in instant coffee industry. To prepare for a move into Japanese market‚ Ken Ishiguro who is the marketing manager of Aroma did amount of marketing researches on the instant coffee in Japan. Originally he came to the conclusion that it would be difficult for Aroma to enter Japanese market‚ due to the culture difference between Japanese and western
Premium Marketing Brand
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672 Plaintiff: Michael Barnes Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO” Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010 Background Facts: Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store
Premium Meaning of life Law Sodium
Billabong Financial Review Review of Billabong Financial information for 2005-2008 Note: tables are shown in $’000s (excluding $ values expressed with decimal places) Note: revenue is expressed and revenue from the sale of goods. Question 1 – Revenue and Revenue Margin 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Revenue $ (From the sale of goods) $840‚701 $1‚018‚227 $1‚222‚911 $1‚347‚618 % Change from previous year 24.60% 21.12% 20.10% 10.20% % Change from base year (2004) 24.60% 50.91% 81.24% 99.73%
Premium Financial ratios Financial ratio Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Part A (i) the fact arises on Arthur Murray(NS) Pty Ltd V FCT (1965) 114 CLR 314 is that the taxpayer sold prepaid dancing lessons with prepaid fees attributable in part to lessons to be provided in future income years. The commissioner assessed the tax payer on the basis that prepaid fees constituted income derived by the taxpayer when received. The high court concluded that amount received in respect of service to be provided in future years are not earned until the future obligations for which
Premium Tax Taxation Income tax
for Computers Pty Ltd. Due to Chu’s senior position knows the identity and requirements of the company’s major clients. In March 2007‚ Chu decides to retire and agrees to not compete against the company in NSW for two years. However in April 2007‚ Systems Pty Ltd actively solicits business from the customers of Computers Pty Ltd in NSW and Chu’s wife is the sole director for Systems Pty Ltd. After 1 July 2007 Computers Pty Ltd reorganized their company and now called Software Pty Ltd. The problem
Premium Corporation Subsidiary Contract
Introduction: Naa Gee Pty Ltd is a large proprietary company that is owned by the Ma and Banks families and have been trading in the furniture manufacturing business for over 30 years. The company has 6 shareholders from within the two families and they does not have any shareholder from the outside. The company’s main working force consists of 20 employees and 5 of which are employed regularly. They have little debt (mainly bank loan of $500‚000)‚ more than $15 million of assets and turnover of
Premium Financial statements Balance sheet
FACTS OF THE CASE Southern Fairway Investments Pty. Ltd.‚ and Jakabar Pty Ltd (second defendant‚ and it being a wholly subsidiary company from the First Defendant) performed a Memorandum of Understanding or “MOU”. The MOU was executed in the way of a “deed” on the 12 of June 2008 where the parties would “use reasonable endeavours to negotiate by 30 august 2008 (and in any event no later than 30 October 2008) a Gas Supply Agreement” with the purpose to end of entering into a GSA (Gas Supply Agreement)
Premium Contract Law Corporation