• Subject Name : General Law


Question 1:





Question 2:




Question 3:





Question 4:


Partnership Act - Question 1


Dividends are an integral feature of corporate law and an important component of both transactions in large and small businesses. Dividend payout is the primary method for annual returns on assets for shareholders. However, from both a legal and an accounting standpoint there are also complexities of dividends[1].


In certain small companies where the directors are still owners, the corporation is not legally obliged to pay dividends and is instead agreed not to offer a dividend, but to pay the salary for the directors. In these conditions, accounting guidance is to be recommended as to which form or mix of taxes is best. In situations where it is not clear if the corporation has adequate earnings to make a payout, the directors must be careful when paying dividends. According to Section 830(2) of the Companies Act 2006, a formula for decider when a dividend should be charged specifies that only 'accumulated benefit minus accumulated expenses' can be charged for a dividend. The average director does not generally grasp this formula, so that an accountants' comfort before agreeing to record a dividend can be worthwhile.


If the managers approve a dividend to be paid in cases where the corporation is insolvent, the managers will be subject to personal responsibility for the quantities to be remitted by liquidators. While directors take a main dividend decision with the following consequences, shareholders must ratify it. This is based on the Articles of Association of a corporation. Table A regular articles are adopted by the most restricted businesses, and the method of usual resolution is dealt with in Article 30[2].


Dividends can also prove disputable if administrators fail to pay a dividend. This can be a deliberate option based on an unnecessarily careful strategy or intimidation in order to hurt minority shareholders. Although minority shareholders may appeal to the court for penalties based on such actions, this is far from being the perfect scenario on the grounds of an undue disadvantage application, as proceedings will entail inherent risk and costs in situations in which the shareholder may start substantially off-pocket and/or lack the means to continue. If managers are smart, maybe by reporting motives for denying a dividend or maybe declare a lower dividend or accepting a dividend for a number of years, but not others, to make waters murky, it is not always convenient. it is not always necessary.

Partnership Act - Question 2


A liquidator shall not be allowed to incur any cost for the winding up except for lodging records and reports allowed under the Companies Act 2001 (Corporations Act), unless sufficient funds to pay for the windings up. If the company has inadequate assets, one or more creditors which consent to repay the costs and expenses of a liquidator to conduct investigations and to take steps to obtain further assets. When the liquidator or a borrower recovers more money, he or she will seek restitution to the Court for financing the recovery action by the liquidator. The offset is typically charged prior to paying all creditors. If a liquidator suspects that the liquidator has not done crimes or is inadequate funds to pay to the liquidator for further inquiry, the liquidator may seek ASIC for support to pursue the allegations further and send a report to ASIC.


The liquidator must file an application. For the gain of all creditors, a liquidator may reclaim any payments made within six months before the start of the winding up by the corporation to particular creditors, considered "unfair interests."


Whether the corporation is insolvent because a borrower assumes (or may suspect) that they are insolvent because receives reimbursement of their liability (or any of it) in the run-up to the other creditors, a borrower is given the disproportionate preference. To be unequal, the payout needs to place the borrower who collects it better off than all unsecured creditors. In six months before liquidation, not all transfers by the corporation to a borrower are unjust choice. In order to make unequal preferences, the Companies Act offers separate defendants. When a liquidator wants to reclaim your payment, the liquidator must give you justification and proof to make this point[3].

Partnership Act - Question 3


GoGet Shops still cannot pay any money, and Jovicic and Beveridge care about getting their money back. On another note, a few weeks ago, David saw JJ Developers' ads inviting people to paint a new building and showed the ad to the others in the expectation that they will all create a relationship and get some money[4].


The painting was decided upon by Grace, Imran and David, while Stephanie and Nancy were to take over the managerial duties of the partnership firm. After a hard day's work, both the couples went home and David agreed to buy a handheld stereo to use in and at work. Nancy purchased machine ink for the printer as the ink in the collaboration office printer was poor[5].


The codification of the remedy for the violation of the duties of directors was too early in the reform period, and the remedy which are likely to be required for the violation of the common law obligation 174 and equity-related duties of 171–173 and 175–177 were the same as if the corresponding common law provision or equitable principle were applied (S 178(1))[6].


Since in the law (s 195 (substantial transactions) and s 213 (loans, etc.) there are no fixes for the lack of the shareholder's consent in respect of large transactions, loans, and other credit agreements between the director and the company: see section 13.2.3), it would not have been too difficult to provide redress for breaches of the general duties of the Act of 2006. However, the methodology followed helps the solutions to be versatile and changing. Sadly, this versatility is assured at the expense that the legislative declaration of director's responsibilities was not to achieve consistency and usability.

Partnership Act - Question 4

  1. On another note, a few weeks ago, David saw JJ Developers' ads inviting people to paint a new building and showed the ad to the others in the expectation that they will all create a relationship and get some money. The painting was decided upon by Grace, Imran and David, while Stephanie and Nancy were to take over the managerial duties of the partnership firm. After a hard day's work, both the couples went home and David agreed to buy a handheld stereo to use in and at work. Nancy purchased machine ink for the printer as the ink in the collaboration office printer was poor[7].

  2. JJ Developers sent the collaboration a letter to remind them of more possibilities to paint at a new venue. The letter was sent by Stephanie and Nancy and they didn't tell the others. Stephanie and Nancy, unknown to Grace, Imran and David, took the new opportunity of painting themselves in the new venue. You work during the night while Grace, Imran and David do not use the equipment and services for collaboration. Grace, Imran and David have discovered that Stephanie and Nancy have not equipped them with new painting experiences and that they are employed at the new place on multiple jobs at night with collaboration equipment and services. You are upset and asked Stephanie and Nancy to pay for all the money they got from the new opportunities for drawing[8].

  3. For any partner, maybe the main question is: 'what do I have under this agreement?' The obligation of a partner is in principle important (or also of a non-partner 'held out' as a partner below). Each partner or individual named as a partner is an entity and a director of the company and may therefore connect the company and its associates: s.9. One of the partners is clearly the proverbial protector of his brother and will be responsible for the actions of other partners both legally and financially in the overall business direction. If one partner is liable and there is no coverage insurance (or the coverage provider declines to take care of the loss), so the liability of each partner is mutual and multiple: s.16. When other couples become insolvent, the source of great suffering occurs for couples. The solvent partners must bear the weight of overall liability. As mentioned above, the topic of "holding" is especially significant and is discussed in s.18(1) of the Act. "Holding out" means the position where a non-partner advertisement or is marketed as a partner in the country. The publicity may be overt and/or implied. For example, if the organisation requires a non-partner to 'sign' on organisation accounts or records, or if a non-partner has an office next to his or her partner, or otherwise receives from the real partners, so it indirectly means it the non-partner is in effect a partner in the universe. In order to demonstrate convey signals, a non-partner will be involved while he / she has its name as a partner or goes even further[9].

References for The Development of Orthoptics in Australia

Garrett, A. A. (2020). History of the Society of Incorporated Accountants 1885-1957 (Vol. 30). Routledge.

Brown, S. A. (2020). Hindsight: The Development of Orthoptics in Australia 1931-60 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney).

Briggs, C. E. (2020). Where was Aboriginal Self-determination in the Wood Inquiry? A Policy Analysis of Child Protection'Reforms' in NSW, Australia.

Janik, M. R., & Aryaie, A. H. 2020 Virtual Scientific Session of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), 11-13 August 2020: Podium Abstracts.

Re Spanish Prospecting [1910] UKLawRpCh 125; [1911] 1 Ch 92 at 98 per Fletcher Moulton LJ; confirmed in QBE Insurance Group Ltd v ASC (1992) 8 ACSR 631 at 645 per Lockhart J.

Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn [1977] HCA 59; (1977) 137 CLR 567 at 572.

Brookton Co-operative v FCT [1981] HCA 28; (1979) 147 CLR 441 at 455 per Mason J.

Arjunan, K and Low, CK, “Dividends: A Comparative Analysis of the Provisions in Hong Kong and Australia” (1995) 5 Australian J of Corp L 455 at 457, say that given the importance of dividends in finance and corporate law, it is an anomaly that they are only marginally regulated. The importance of dividend policy is discussed in Section 3.

Thomas v HW Thomas (1984) 2 ACLC 610, both refused to find the declaration of low dividends oppressive.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Upload your assignment
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts


  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

  • Total

  • Let's Start

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help