Writing a custom essay on law is an important part of your course since the law essay writing requires you both to present the level of your command of the theory as well as to complete a case study or two based on this theory.
Each of these issues will be considered individually below. The rule of law for this issue is in regard to two potential issues. S 1 provides that directors have a requirement to exercise reasonable care and diligence in their duties for the company.
The objective test for this is whether a reasonable person would have acted differently under those circumstances. In addition, an overlapping rule between statutory law and common law pertains to the requirement to exercise fiduciary duty of care and diligence, as shown in the recent case of Vines v ASIC,NSWCA This includes such a duty to avoid acts of corporate misconduct and avoid risk from such actions.
A third issue is the breach of agency for the company. In the first case, statutory duty of care, by her lack of care in not checking the order, Carol breached S 1 by conducting the business of the company without reasonable care and diligence, resulting in negligence.
In addition to the objective test of whether a reasonable person would have acted thus, common law also states that ignorance does not protect her from such negligence. This action did breach the duty of care and fail the similar reasonable person test stated in S 1. Common law implies she should have exercised more care in the order placed.
Failing to do so also is a breach of the minimum standards of care. Thus, Carol failed to execute reasonable care, failed her requirement to act with fiduciary care and diligence, and exceeded her express grant of agency.
She has ignored her duty to exercise reasonable care, to exercise fiduciary care and diligence, and stay within her authorized agency for the company [Reference: In general, directors of a company must not have an interest in a transaction with another company unless the director makes full disclosure of the nature of that interest to members of the company in a General Meeting, and they approve that interest by ordinary resolution.
In this regard, the director must account to the company for any benefit which is received by use or reason of his or her position. S specifies that directors must use their powers to discharge their duties in good faith and in the best interests of corporation and for proper purposes.
S specifies a director using his or her position to gain advantage for themselves is in breach of their obligations to the company [Reference s 1 a ] S specifies that using business information for personal advantage is also a breach of obligation.
The objective test of an improper use of a position is whether the actions consist of a breach of the standard of conduct expected by reasonable persons who have knowledge of the duties, powers, and authority of a director.
She has not disclosed the transaction to the company and therefore will be held liable to account for that profit. She also has a general law duty to avoid a conflict of interest. In terms of the Corporations Act, there would also be an improper use of her position as director.Strict Liability.
Strict liability torts, which do not require a finding of intent or negligence, are primarily confined to ultrahazardous activities and product liability cases. An activity is ultrahazardous if it is so inherently dangerous that even the highest degree of care will not eliminate the risk of harm.
Torts are civil wrongs other than breaches of contracts, for which the law provides a remedy. Some examples of torts are: negligence, battery, false imprisonment, and assault. Tort laws deal with situations where one party has wrong another party in some fashion.
One similarity between tort law and criminal law is that both aretried in a court of law by a judge, and possibly a jury. Tort lawhas to do with laws that are of a civil natur e.
Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process in New South Wales, (5th edition, Federation Press, ), pp. ; Absolute liability Rationale: requiring proof of actual state of mind of accused at the time of actus reus would impose an onerous burden on the prosecution.
other types of legal wrongs such as torts, breaches of contract, and the like. which may result in punishment’: G Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd edn, ) that the former are prosecuted through criminal as opposed to non-criminal proceedings. or legislatures choose to describe as such.
Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action, but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea).