​P instructs A to purchase some jewellery from TP for no more than $50,000, and because she wishes to remain anonymous, P asks A not to disclose her identity to TP.  In fact, A does not even disclose to TP that she is acting for another party in her negotiations with him.

TP refuses to sell for less than $60,000 and A, realising the potential value of the jewellery, agrees to pay $60,000 believing that P will consent to that price on learning of the circumstances.

In fact, P refuses to pay for the jewellery. Explain, with reasons, whether TP can enforce the contract against P (upon learning of her identity)

(i) Might your answer be different if A had disclosed that she was acting as P's agent at the beginning of her negotiations with TP.  Why or why not? 

(ii) Could A be liable to TP in the circumstances set out in (i)? If so, on what basis? If not, why not?  

(iii) Conversely, if on the facts you were originally given[ignoring (i) & (ii)], P had chosen to accept the contract entered into by A but TP refused to honour it, could P sue TP? Why or why not?  [20 marks] 

(Source of questions: Latimer, Australian Business Law Teachers Manual)

1500 WORDS

This IARC style it will be helpful to you how arrange answer please apply these styles and use footnotes and Chicago style reference 

Use this style in your assignment

Q2  Assume that Predator does proceed to make a bid for Target.  The Directors of Target, all but one of whom are opposed to the bid, are considering whether to include an independent expert's report in the Target's Statement.  

The Directors are concerned that any such report should support their opposition to the bid.  One option might be to have the report prepared by a Director of one of Target's subsidiary companies, Prey Pty Ltd ('Prey'), who is also a Chartered Accountant. (Naturally there would be no mention of his Directorship of Prey in the report). Another might be to commission several reports and include the one which is most supportive of their position.  Alternatively, they might simply choose to issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report.  Advise the Directors of Target as to the legality or otherwise of the different courses of action which they are contemplating. 

MODEL ANSWER:

(i) Can the Directors issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report?

Section 640 of the Corporations Act ('the Act')requires a Target’s Statement to include or be accompanied by an expert’s report if the Bidder (B) has more than 30% voting power in the Target company (T) or B and T have common directors, at the time of the bid.

It is not clear from the question whether either of these conditions are satisfied.

However, we are told in Q1 that Predator (together with its associate Tiger), had approximately 18% voting power in T at the time it first sought advice on a possible takeover of T. Assuming its shareholding was unchanged at the time of making the bid, then it follows that T can issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report, so long as it did not sharecommon directors with B at this time. However, the fact that one of Target's directors in not opposed to the bid, leaves open the possibility that the two companies have common directors.

(ii) If the Target's Statement is to include an expert's report, can the report be prepared by a Director of Prey?

I will first assume that the Act requires the Target’s Statement to include an Expert’s Report (see (i) above).  In these circumstances, Section 648A of the Act provides that the Expert must not be an associate of either B or T.  In turn, the definition of Associate in s12 of the Act includes Directors of subsidiary companies. It follows that, as a Director of one of T'ssubsidiaries, the Director of Prey is an Associate of T and therefore cannot prepare the report if its inclusion in the Target’s Statement is required by the Act.

If my earlier assumption is incorrect and the inclusion of the report in the Target’s Statement is not required by the Act, then s648A will no longer apply.  However, s670A of the Act provides, in part, that a person must not include a misleading or deceptive statement in a Target’s Statement or in any document that accompanies a Target’s Statement. If B were to describe an expert’s report prepared by one of its associates as an 'independent expert's' report, it would likely amount to misleading and deceptive conduct on B's part.  This would certainly be the case if the report did not disclose the expert's relationship with B.

(iii) If the Director of Prey were to prepare the report need it mention his directorship of Prey?

I will again assume that the Act requires the Target’s Statement to include an expert’s report.  In these circumstances, Section 648A of the Act requires, in part, that the expert must set out in the report 'details of any relationship between the expert and … the target or an associate of the target and … any financial or other interest of the expert that could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting the expert's ability to give an unbiased opinion'.  In turn the definition of Associate in s12 of the Act includes subsidiary companies.  

It follows that if, contrary to the Act (see (ii) above), the Director were to prepare the expert's report then he must disclose his directorship of Prey both to detail his relationship with an associate of T and as an interest which could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting his ability to give an unbiased opinion

If my earlier assumption is incorrect and the inclusion of the report in Target’s Statement is not required by Act, then s648A will no longer apply.  However, as argued in (ii) above, if B were to describe an expert’s report prepared by one of its associates as an 'independent expert's report' without the report disclosing the expert's relationship with B, then this would amount to a clear case of misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of B in breach of s670A of Act.

In this question, the relevant principles of law were contained in a statute.  In a different question you might instead refer to a case eg:

Byrne v Van Tienhoven establishes that revocation of an offer is only effective when communicated  

Or simply:  Revocation of an offer is only effective when communicated – Byrne v Van Tienhoven'

this is another sample this is not asingnment question 

It is only for your help this is solved question 

Thanks 

SOLVED ANSWER QUESTION 

Q2  Assume that Predator does proceed to make a bid for Target.  The Directors of Target, all but one of whom are opposed to the bid, are considering whether to include an independent expert's report in the Target's Statement.  

The Directors are concerned that any such report should support their opposition to the bid.  One option might be to have the report prepared by a Director of one of Target's subsidiary companies, Prey Pty Ltd ('Prey'), who is also a Chartered Accountant. (Naturally there would be no mention of his Directorship of Prey in the report). Another might be to commission several reports and include the one which is most supportive of their position.  Alternatively, they might simply choose to issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report.  Advise the Directors of Target as to the legality or otherwise of the different courses of action which they are contemplating. 

MODEL ANSWER:

(i) Can the Directors issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report?

Section 640 of the Corporations Act ('the Act')requires a Target’s Statement to include or be accompanied by an expert’s report if the Bidder (B) has more than 30% voting power in the Target company (T) or B and T have common directors, at the time of the bid.

It is not clear from the question whether either of these conditions are satisfied.

However, we are told in Q1 that Predator (together with its associate Tiger), had approximately 18% voting power in T at the time it first sought advice on a possible takeover of T. Assuming its shareholding was unchanged at the time of making the bid, then it follows that T can issue the Target's Statement without an expert's report, so long as it did not sharecommon directors with B at this time. However, the fact that one of Target's directors in not opposed to the bid, leaves open the possibility that the two companies have common directors.

(ii) If the Target's Statement is to include an expert's report, can the report be prepared by a Director of Prey?

I will first assume that the Act requires the Target’s Statement to include an Expert’s Report (see (i) above).  In these circumstances, Section 648A of the Act provides that the Expert must not be an associate of either B or T.  In turn, the definition of Associate in s12 of the Act includes Directors of subsidiary companies. It follows that, as a Director of one of T'ssubsidiaries, the Director of Prey is an Associate of T and therefore cannot prepare the report if its inclusion in the Target’s Statement is required by the Act.

If my earlier assumption is incorrect and the inclusion of the report in the Target’s Statement is not required by the Act, then s648A will no longer apply.  However, s670A of the Act provides, in part, that a person must not include a misleading or deceptive statement in a Target’s Statement or in any document that accompanies a Target’s Statement. If B were to describe an expert’s report prepared by one of its associates as an 'independent expert's' report, it would likely amount to misleading and deceptive conduct on B's part.  This would certainly be the case if the report did not disclose the expert's relationship with B.

(iii) If the Director of Prey were to prepare the report need it mention his directorship of Prey?

I will again assume that the Act requires the Target’s Statement to include an expert’s report.  In these circumstances, Section 648A of the Act requires, in part, that the expert must set out in the report 'details of any relationship between the expert and … the target or an associate of the target and … any financial or other interest of the expert that could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting the expert's ability to give an unbiased opinion'.  In turn the definition of Associate in s12 of the Act includes subsidiary companies.  

It follows that if, contrary to the Act (see (ii) above), the Director were to prepare the expert's report then he must disclose his directorship of Prey both to detail his relationship with an associate of T and as an interest which could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting his ability to give an unbiased opinion

If my earlier assumption is incorrect and the inclusion of the report in Target’s Statement is not required by Act, then s648A will no longer apply.  However, as argued in (ii) above, if B were to describe an expert’s report prepared by one of its associates as an 'independent expert's report' without the report disclosing the expert's relationship with B, then this would amount to a clear case of misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of B in breach of s670A of Act…

In this question, the relevant principles of law were contained in a statute.  In a different question you might instead refer to a case eg:

Byrne v Van Tienhoven establishes that revocation of an offer is only effective when communicated  

Or simply:  

Revocation of an offer is only effective when communicated – Byrne v Van Tienhoven'

USE IRAC APPROACH FOR ASSIGNMENT

Instructions –

If you do use the IRAC approach, you will normally need to go through its steps several times (or more) in the course of an answer – that is identify a legal issue, set out the relevant law, apply the law to the facts of the question before concluding on that issue and then going on to the next issue (just as we do in tutorials). In other words, you should not have one section of your answer setting out all the legal issues raised by the question, followed by one section setting out all the relevant law and so on – that will be difficult for the marker to follow and consequently may lose you marks.   

I send sample answers you can check it 

Please apply agency law on the assignment question

USE IRAC APPROACH FOR ASSIGNMENT 

Instructions –

If you do use the IRAC approach, you will normally need to go through its steps several times (or more) in the course of an answer – that is identify a legal issue, set out the relevant law, apply the law to the facts of the question before concluding on that issue and then going on to the next issue (just as we do in tutorials). In other words, you should not have one section of your answer setting out all the legal issues raised by the question, followed by one section setting out all the relevant law and so on – that will be difficult for the marker to follow and consequently may lose you marks.

At least 10 reference Chicago style

Solution 1

Issues

1. Whether TP can enforce the contract against P upon learning the identity of A?
2.  If A had disclosed that she was acting as P's agent at the beginning of her negotiations with TP, then can TP sue P?
3. Could A be liable to TP in the circumstances given?  
4. If P had chosen to accept the contract entered into by A but TP refused to honour it, could P sue TP?

Law

The law of agency is a relationship that is established amid two persons, the principal and the agent. The law of agency submits that the agent is the authorised representative of the principal and must act within the authority that is granted to the agent by the principal. The authority can be granted to an agent in two manners: (Judge 2009)

1. Actual – if the agent is acting within the authority that is expressly or impliedly granted by the principal, then, any acts that are carried on by the agent within such authority is binding on the principal and is held in the leading case of Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Magnal) Ltd [1964])
2. Ostensible –when the principal himself makes a representation to an outsider wherein he makes any act or conduct which depicts that a person is the agent of the principal and is authorised by the principal (which in reality he was not), then, any actions that are taken by the agent with the outsider within such representation is binding upon the principal and is held in the leading case of Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead [1968]

Many a times an agent enters into a contract with the outsiders and undertakes actions which are outside his authority. In such situation, the principal can deny the presence of the contract on the pretext that the agent has exceeded his authority and thus he is not bound by the same. But, in order to protect the legitimate interest of the outsiders, the Indoor Management rule is established and it was held that whenever an outsider is dealing with the agent of the principal on the hope and good faith that the agent does have the required authority then such contracts are binding on the principal provided the outsider has no reason to believe that the agent has not the required authority to bind the principal and is held in the leading case of Royal British Bank  v Turquand (1856).

(Some parts of the solution has been blurred due to privacy protection policy)