Attracting Provision of Partnership Act †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Attracting Provision of Partnership Act. Answer: Introduction: The problem of the case is attracting the provision of Partnership Act 1892 (Morse 2010). It has been mentioned under section 5 of the said Act that a firm will be liable if any collaborate in a partnership business performs wrongful work during the business or he has committed the same with the collaboration with other partners will be held liable if any damage sustained by that work. The third party should sustain the damage (Blackett-Ord and Haren 2015). It has been observed that in this case all the partners are bound by the norms of the contract signed in between them. A particular amount has been stated for purchasing a car and one of the partners Lance has purchased a car from Lynton without maintaining the limited amount. It is clear that Lance has made a wilful violation to the partnership contract during his business. Therefore, the other partners have a choice to held Lynton liable for his act. However, according to the case of National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v Batty, it can be stated that though only one partner has done the wrongful act, the other partners have also same liability regarding the damage sustained by Lynton. In that case, the Australian High Court held that the primary rule of the partnership is that every partner is liable for the wrongful act of others. Lynton can make the other partners held liable according to the provision of section 15 of the Partnership Act 1892. In case of a partnership, each partner is enjoying certain rights regarding their business and one of the rights are fiduciary relationship (Fletcher 2000). The partners are free to file any case on reimbursement against Lance and can claim damage as Lance had failed to act in good faith. To sum up, it can be said that all the partners are liable for the wrongful act of Lance as per the provision of section 10 and 15 of the Partnership Act 1892 and also can file a suit against Lance. After analysing the facts, following issues have been cropped up: Whether the consumer can be compensated for moisturizer. Whether the norms of the contract are mandatory for Saqlaim or not. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the provision of Australian Consumer Law govern the present facts of the case. According to section 29 of the Act, restrictions are to be imposed on the advertised statements that make false conception regarding the goods (Corones 2013). The intention of the statement is to promote the goods in a wrongful way. It is a common principle of law that once the offer regarding a contract is being accepted, the contract become legalise and binding the contracting parties. However, the terms of the contract should have to be legal in nature and the contracting parties must have the competency to enter into the contract (Chandler 2015). In this case, a violation regarding section 29 of the Consumer Law has been made and Xiaojing will be held liable for misrepresenting the credibility of the product to earn profit from the same. Regarding the second issue, it can be said that one of the parties of the contract, Saqlaim is bound by the terms of the contract as the terms of the contract are legal in nature. It can. Therefore b e stated that Saqlaim has a right to sue Xiaojing for publishing false advertisement for the infringement of section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Conversely, he is bound by the terms of the contract. The provision of Fair Work Act 2009 will apply in this case (Read and Dealing 2013). As per this Act, it is the right of the employees to get incentives during the course of their employment (Kolivos and Kuperman 2012). The main problem regarding the payment of incentive is that there is no uniform law regarding the same. there is a general rule that states that the relating rules can be guided by the contract or registered agreement made in between the employer and the employees (Layton, Smith and Stewart 2013). According to the facts of this case, it has been observed that there was no written or registered agreement existed in between the two. In addition, Felix was not a permanent employee. It has been mentioned that Felix can continue his job until summer holidays only. Conclusion: The problem regarding the issue can be concluded with the observation that Felix cannot sue Xiaojing for the non-payment of promised money or incentives as no necessary criteria was fulfilled in this case regarding the claim for compensation. Reference: Blackett-Ord, M. and Haren, S., 2015.Partnership Law. Bloomsbury Publishing. Chandler, A., 2015.Law of Contract. Oxford University Press, USA. Corones, S.G., 2013.The Australian consumer law. Thomson Reuters, Lawbook Co.. Fletcher, K.L., 2000.The Law of Partnership in Australia New Zealand. LBC information services. Kolivos, E. and Kuperman, A., 2012. Consumer law: Web of lies-legal implications of astroturfing.Keeping good companies,64(1), p.38. Layton, R., Smith, M. and Stewart, A., 2013. Equal Remuneration Under the Fair Work Act 2009. Morse, G., 2010.Partnership law. Oxford University Press. Read, R. and Dealing, D., 2013. Union Recognition and Good Faith Bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009(2012).Australian Journal of Labour Law,25, p.130.