Business and Law Cases
Lec 4
Chap 29
United domains Corp v Brian Pty Ltd(p200): Was the agreement a joint venture or partnership? Decision: High court held that the parties were in a partnership; hence United Domain was entitled to share in profit.
Canny Gabrial Castle v Volume Sales(p200): Canny Gabrial argued that the 2 companies were joint ventures Decision: Agreement was partnership
Polkinghorne v Holland(p205): Was the giving of financial advice outside the ordinary business of the law firm, such that the partners would be jointly liable Decision: Held that the firm was liable for the actions of hollan’s son
Lec 5
Chap 13
Balfour v Balfour(256): At the time of the agreement, did the parties intend the arrangement to be anything more than a domestic agreement Decision: The arrangement was a domestic agreement ‘because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences’
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community (SA) (259): Can a minister of religion be an employee of a church or church agency Decision: Court had found this is a non-commercial relationship, but the agreement was intended to be legally enforced
Trevey v Grubb (255): Was the agreement friendly so that there was never any intention for parties to enter into legal relationship? Decision: This was a social arrangement however the was an intention for the agreement to be enforceable
Teen Ranch v Brown(258): Was there a contract of employment between Brown and Teen Ranch that would initial workers compensation? Decision: There was no intention to create legal relations but the parties and so no contract of employment could exist, as the work was voluntary
Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros (p251): was the effect of the clause showed that there was no legal relationship Decision: the clause expressly declared that there was no legal relations and not legally binding
Chap 14
Harvey v Facey (278): Was the 2nd telegram an offer which was accepted by the 3rd
Chap 29
United domains Corp v Brian Pty Ltd(p200): Was the agreement a joint venture or partnership? Decision: High court held that the parties were in a partnership; hence United Domain was entitled to share in profit.
Canny Gabrial Castle v Volume Sales(p200): Canny Gabrial argued that the 2 companies were joint ventures Decision: Agreement was partnership
Polkinghorne v Holland(p205): Was the giving of financial advice outside the ordinary business of the law firm, such that the partners would be jointly liable Decision: Held that the firm was liable for the actions of hollan’s son
Lec 5
Chap 13
Balfour v Balfour(256): At the time of the agreement, did the parties intend the arrangement to be anything more than a domestic agreement Decision: The arrangement was a domestic agreement ‘because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences’
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community (SA) (259): Can a minister of religion be an employee of a church or church agency Decision: Court had found this is a non-commercial relationship, but the agreement was intended to be legally enforced
Trevey v Grubb (255): Was the agreement friendly so that there was never any intention for parties to enter into legal relationship? Decision: This was a social arrangement however the was an intention for the agreement to be enforceable
Teen Ranch v Brown(258): Was there a contract of employment between Brown and Teen Ranch that would initial workers compensation? Decision: There was no intention to create legal relations but the parties and so no contract of employment could exist, as the work was voluntary
Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros (p251): was the effect of the clause showed that there was no legal relationship Decision: the clause expressly declared that there was no legal relations and not legally binding
Chap 14
Harvey v Facey (278): Was the 2nd telegram an offer which was accepted by the 3rd