Free Essay

Fiduciary Duties

In: Business and Management

Submitted By teresa7b
Words 2685
Pages 11
Title: Fiduciary obligations may spring up by reason of relationships of trust and confidence or confidential relations.

Introduction
Fiduciary is an important issue arises in business relationships, in partnerships, it helps create a fair business environment for all the parties when working together, in agency, it protects the principles' benefits, in corporations, it may lead the business operates properly and legally. Therefore, fiduciary obligations are closely related to co-operations Trust and confidence are the most important elements in these fiduciary relations, in this essay, the relationship of a fiduciary obligation and above relations will be demonstrated and explained.

Table of Content

Introduction P.1
Table of Content P.2
The Basic Concept of Fiduciary P.3
Fiduciary Concepts and Obligation vs Partnership Relations P.6
Fiduciary Concepts and Obligation vs Corporate Relations 1. Directors P.8 2. Promoters P.11
Conclusions P.13
Bibliography P.14

The Basic Concept of Fiduciary
Fiduciary, under oxford’s dictionaries’ definition, is trustee who is given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer the beneficiary’s interest, and the Cambridge dictionary defines “relating to the responsibility to look after someone else's money in a correct way”. It is obvious that the fiduciary concept involves the element of mutual trust and confidence: the property or interest of the beneficiary which relied on the protection of the trustee, a correct way arise an obligation that the behavior is monitored by avoiding any equitable breaches. Besides, it also presumes that not only the beneficiary but the trustee’s benefit is also protected, the beneficiary have to keep his promise of the trustees’ interest when the duty is completed and the promise of confidential information between the parties.

According to Paul Finn (1989, P.83)’s definitions, “A fiduciary is obliged to act in beneficiary’s interest, not only that it possess certain characteristics, but also being wish to exact particular standard of conduct”, In a case Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1990) relating fiduciary duty, “a fiduciary is a person who undertakes or agree to act for, or on behalf of, or inter interests of, another person, in the exercise of power of discretion which will affect the interests of that other person in a legal or practical sense.’ Mason J said. "a position of disadvantage or vulnerability on the part of one of the parties which causes him to place reliance upon the other and requires the protection of equity acting upon the conscience of that other" given by Dawson J in the same case. Hepburn, S (2009, P.118) divide the types of fiduciary in to two level, Vertical level and Horizontal Level, Horizontal level are the relationship of the partners to be equally, e.g partnership and joint ventures. Their capacity and interest in this fiduciary relationship is similar. Vertical level is the relationship between the partners who is one side stronger while the other side is weak. (e.g. Solicitors and their clients). The Stronger side (i.e. the solicitors) has a capacity to control the issues, while the weaker side has to rely on the stronger side to complete an issue.

From the above comments, fiduciary obligations relies on a relationship of loyalty, trust and confidence, and the parties in the relationship requires to act on bona fides to each other and the trustee is required to place his knowledge and skills to act on beneficiaries’ interests, business behavior is restricted so that they are protected by avoiding any violations of each others' interest and to provide a fair environment for those relationship. Fiduciary duties may also help and stop damaging the relationship. There are different fiduciary requirements between different relationships and will discuss in details of these relationship with fiduciary obligations. Moreover, Duke Group Ltd (In Liq.) v Pilmer & Ors (1999), suggested that, trustee and beneficiary, agent and principal, solicitor and client, director and company, partner and partner, generally accepted fiduciary relationships, to realize the infinite variety of circumstances in which the duty has been held to arise within those relationships, and will be owed by one person to another.

Fiduciary Concepts and Obligation vs Partnership relations
Before imposing the fiduciary obligations in to a partnership relationship, the court may look into details whether a partnership exists. According to Partnership Act ss.1” Partnership is the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit. From Partnership Act ss..5 said, every partner in a partnership is an agent of the firm and of the other partners for the purpose of the business of the partnership; no matter an agent or a partner, they all owe a fiduciary obligation. The fiduciary duties in partnership, is described as horizontal. When a partnership exists, a fiduciary obligation arise in a contract or a business relationship, that expect the partners have mutual rights and duties and are bound to exercise the utmost good faith in the best interest of the partnership, according to ss28 of Partnership Act, they have to disclose full information or opportunities relevant to the firm’s business, which means that they have to avoid any conflict of interest and taking any personal advantage from it, from ss29, partners have to explain for the private profit derived from the partnership and refer to ss30 of partnership Act said they cannot form a similar business compete with the partnership which is also arising a conflict of interest in fiduciary, On the other side, it also means that the principle should give the trustees exercising the power on behalf of the principle but should not misuse the power and information to gain any private interest for their own. All partners are expected to respect to the rules and obligation with accordance of the contract or the legislations. In the case of Birtchnell v Equity Trustee (1929), the defendant has sold and repurchased a land of the partnership and earned a profit without notice to other partners, the court held that the defendant had to account the profit to other partners. In the case of Chan V Zacharia (1984) relating the use of partnership’s position for personal benefit, the court held that Chan has breached of fiduciary obligations as he has violate the conflict of interest of the partnership. The obligation is valid from the start of the business which the partnership agreement is formed and end until the business finally wound up, but in this case, the partnership haven’t been wound up, and at the same time, the partner cannot use partnership’s asset in the gain of personal interest.

Fiduciary Concepts and Obligation vs Corporate Relations
When discussing this topic with corporations, the managing staffs owe duties to the other stake holders, the main example of the managing staffs are promoters and directors.

Corporation vs Directors
Directors, under Corporation Act s.9,, defines who are appointed at this position or acting in that capacity, are important agents, trustees and fiduciaries between a company and share holders and they are part of controllers of the company and possess a power of decision making and access company books etc, therefore, they owe a fiduciary duty to them. It is a fiduciary relationship described as a vertical relationship. In accordance with the corporation Act, the duties of directors owe to the shareholder include acting in good faith in the best interest of the company, loyalty to the company and always disclose full and complete information to the principle of the company which is provided in Corporation Act s.181, it is because they are appointed by the shareholders to act on behalf the company and act for the benefits for them.. Secondly, they have a duty to use the information, power and position in a proper way, it means they must avoid any conflict of interest with their position that means the directors have to require the approval for the company’s transactions, so that the company benefits can be protected, told by s182 and s183 of the Corporation Act. In the case of Regal Hasting v Gulliver (1942), which is related conflict of interest between directors and the company, which the court held that the directors had to account the profit to the company, Lord Wright concluded that “In the absence of any dishonest intention, or negligence, or breach of a specific duty to acquire the shares for the appellant company, the respondents as directors were entitled to buy the shares themselves. Once, it was said, they came to a bona fide decision that the appellant company could not provide the money to take up the shares, their obligation to refrain from acquiring those shares for themselves came to an end.” Therefore the directors is obliged to avoid from the conflict of interest at any time even the principle hasn’t got any ability to gain the interest in the same issue. Under s184, it was told that if they are reckless and intentionally dishonest, will come to a criminal offence. One thing should be noted that, not only directors, the officers and employee are also applied in the above statutory.

S. 185 states that s.180 – s.184 may also extent to the duties they operate in the common law or principle of equity, Therefore, according to the general law, as directors can exercise their power under the Constitution or replaceable rules in Corporation Act, they also owe a duty to retain discretion of exercising their powers. In General Law, directors have to exercise their powers in active discretions and retain the discretions. There is no specific rule in statutory talking about but according to s190, and s198, there are criteria for the directors to delegate or exercise their powers, and there are required to be responsible for their delegation (see s.190). in the case of ASIC v Adler (2001) regarding to the directors’ duties, s190 and s198 is explained by the General Law, directors may delegate any of their powers to a committee of directors, a single director, an employee of the company or any other person, and he have to be responsible for the delegate’s exercise of power if he or she did not believe on reasonable grounds and in good faith, after making proper inquiries if the circumstances indicate the need for it, that the delegate was reliable and competent in relation to the power delegated and would exercise the power in conformity with the duties imposed on the directors of the company by the Corporations Act: s190(2).

Furthermore on the issue of conflict of interest, in the ss 191 and 195 of the corporation act, directors are require to disclose all of their material actual or potential interest, and refer Chp 2E of Corporation act, directors have disclose all interests of related parties such as controlling power, financial benefits to the company for a further approval of the personal interest and avoid any unauthorized benefits incur in the positions.

Corporations vs Promoters
Promoters, according to Tracy V Mandalay (1953), are the parties actively participate in the formation of corporations but before appointed as directors, A more detailed of definition provide in Aequitas V AEFC Leasing Pry Ltd (2001) is that ” actively participate in the work of raising equity capital for the new company after it has been incorporated but before an independent board has been appointed”, besides, professional bodies and companies may act on behalf of a principle as a promoter.

The courts have promoter-company relationships as within "accepted" or "ordinarily recognized" categories of fiduciary relationship: Hospital Products Ltd. v United States Surgical Corporation (1984), therefore promoters normally owes a fiduciary duty. The fiduciary relationship here describe as a vertical relationship. Fiduciary relationship arise when promoter enter in to the contract with the principle, actively participate in the formation of corporations, promoters owe duty of loyalty to the company and the board of directors, they have to put the company’s interest as the highest interest and avoid any conflict of interest or personal advantages occurs in their positions, especially making secret profit. The most important they have to act on is to avoid and potential for personal gain and they have to keep the principle fully informed by disclose as much as issues relating to his positions (See Aequitas V AEFC Leasing Pry Ltd (2001). In the case of Fairview Schools Sdn. Bhd v Indrani a/p Rajaratnam [1998], Mahadev Shanker JCA said," Promoters have a legal duty not to make a secret profit out of the promotion of the Company without the Company's consent and also to disclose to the Company any interests the promoters have in any transaction proposed to be entered into by the Company" In the case of Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) which is about insufficient disclosure given by the promoter, the court held that the company was entitle to rescind the contracts as promoters didn’t make full disclosures to board of directors.

Michael J WHincop (1998) in the law reform agrees that early disclosure more important than all material information disclosure about the business. It was because loss caused to beneficiary’s interest or conflict of duty may also be arisen when there is a delay of disclosure of information. The fiduciary duties owed by the promoters are almost the same as directors, but the requirement of the disclosures and awareness of conflict of interest are stricter that may easily lead the promoters fall into the breaches of such duties.

Conclusions
The factors of loyalty and truth are the important elements of the personality in different relationship in our human life, not only the above relations, but also in friendship or in families, however, to make a fair co-operative environment, fiduciaries in business relationship is essential, to be easily achieve the goal of fiduciary obligations, all parties have owe a duty care on the conflict of interest, we should try our best to avoid any personal interest that affecting interest of cooperation, and by full disclosure of information may lead us a way to avoid the conflict of interest and duties. Moreover, all parties in a business owes fiduciary obligations to all the others, a trustworthy relationship is build in the trust between each others , not an one-way duties owe from one to another, but it is an interactive duties that they are owe to each others. A pleasant co-operation relationship then will be build up.

Bibliography A. Aritcles / Books / Reports 1. Paul Finn, 1989. Contract and The Fiduciary Principle. UNSW Law Journal, 12, 2. Hepburn, S, Principles of Equity and Trusts (The Federation Press, 4th ed, 2009), Chapter 8, Fiduciary Obligations 3. Ciro, T and Symes, C, Corporations Law in Principle (Thomson Reuters, 8th ed, 2009) 4. Whincop, Michael, "Promoters, Prospectuses and Pragmatism : Updating Fiduciary Duties in a Time of Economic Reform" [1998] MonashULawRw 17;

B. Cases 5. Pilmer v The Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2001] HCA 31; (2001) 207 CLR 165, 6. Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64; 156 CLR 41 7. Birtchnell v Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd [1929] HCA 24; (1929) 42 CLR 384 8. Kak Loui Chan v Zacharia [1984] HCA 36; (1984) 154 CLR 178 (7 June 1984) 9. Regal (Hastings ) Ltd. v. Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1; (1942) 1 All ER 378 10. Asic v Adler and 4 Ors [2001] NSWSC 644 11. Aequitas v Aefc [2001] NSWSC 14 12. Tracy v Mandalay Pty Ltd [1953] HCA 9 13. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co(1878) 3 AC 1218 14. Fairview Schools Sdn. Bhd v Indrani a/p Rajaratnam (No1)[1998] 1 MLJ 110

C. Legislations 15. Partnership Act 1892 (NSW) 16. Corporation Act 2001(CTH)

D. Others 17. Australasian Legal Information Institute, online available at
< http://www.austlii.edu.au/> assessed in 12/2011 18. Jim Jackson, LAW00004 Company Law Study Guide (3rd ed, 2011) 19. Harvard System of Referencing Guide at <http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm> assessed in 12/2011

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Fiduciary Duties

...the essay given, it identifies fiduciary duties of directors as the main issue. There are a few consequences of breaching fiduciary duties. Under general law, a failure to disclose a conflict of interest rendered the transaction voidable at the option of the company. Aside from rescinding the contract, the company can seek to obtain a range of remedies such as an injunction to stop the breach of duty continuing, a constructive trust over assets acquired arising from the breach of duty, an account of profits to strip away gains made by the breach of the duty or equitable compensation. For contraventions of the statutory duties, both ss182 and 183 are civil penalty provisions under s1317E. Therefore, breach of these provisions may result in a declaration of contravention being made by the court and thereafter ASIC may apply for a pecuniary penalty order (s1317G) and/or a disqualification order (s206C) and/or compensation for the company (s1317H). A serious contravention of ss182 or 183 which is dishonest or reckless may result in a criminal liability under s184 (2). This action may be taken by ASIC and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The word ‘fiduciary’ has its roots in the Latin word fiducia, which means trust or confidence. A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interest. Parties owing this duty are called fiduciaries. The individuals to whom they owe a duty to are called principals. Fiduciaries may not profit from their......

Words: 3556 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

Fiduciary Duties

...FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Morrison & Foerster LLP Christopher M. Forrester Celeste S. Ferber RR DONNELLEY EZ START XBRL We Tag. You Validate. We File. With the release of the proposed rule, the SEC will require the use of XBRL for financial reporting starting as early as 2009 for some companies. RR Donnelley is uniquely qualified to give you guidance on how your company can prepare for the SEC mandate. As the market leader in XBRL filings, we have been helping leading companies successfully tag and file XBRL financials since the inception of the SEC Voluntary Filing Program. RR Donnelley’s proven EZ Start XBRL full-service solution is designed to save you crucial time. With EZ Start, we do the initial tagging for you, reducing the time spent mapping and validating XBRL tags to under ten hours. Our goal is to transfer knowledge to your financial team to ensure a firm understanding of the taxonomies, mapping process and SEC requirements. To learn more, visit www.tryxbrl.com. FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Christopher M. Forrester Celeste S. Ferber RR Donnelley Global Capital Markets Copyright© 2008 Morrison & Foerster LLP (No claim to original U.S. Government works) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic...

Words: 49138 - Pages: 197

Free Essay

Justifying Fiduciary Duties

...McGill Law Journal ~ Revue de droit de McGill JUSTIFYING FIDUCIARY DUTIES Paul B. Miller* Fiduciary duties are critical to the integrity of a remarkable variety of relationships, including those between trustee and beneficiary, director and corporation, agent and principal, lawyer and client, doctor and patient, parent and child, and guardian and ward. Notwithstanding their variety, all fiduciary relationships are presumed to enjoy common characteristics and to attract a core set of demanding legal duties, most notably a duty of loyalty. Surprisingly, however, the justification for fiduciary duties is an enigma in private law theory. It is unclear what makes a relationship fiduciary and why fiduciary relationships attract fiduciary duties. This article takes up the enigma. It assesses leading reductivist and instrumentalist analyses of the justification for fiduciary duties. Finding them wanting, it offers an alternative account of the juridical justification for fiduciary duties. The author contends that the fiduciary relationship is a distinctive kind of legal relationship in which one person (the fiduciary) exercises power over practical interests of another (the beneficiary). Fiduciary power is a form of authority derived from the legal capacity of the beneficiary or a benefactor. The duty of loyalty is justified on the basis that it secures the exclusivity of the beneficiary’s claim over fiduciary power so understood. Les obligations fiduciaires sont essentielles......

Words: 25852 - Pages: 104

Free Essay

Former Los Angeles Clippers Owner’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Article Summary

...Former Los Angeles Clippers Owner’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims A tort is a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law (Beatty, Samuelson, & Bredeson 2013). A business tort, also called an economic tort, usually involves unfair practices that result in improper interference with a business contract (Beatty et al., 2013). Purpose of article This article is about the court case between former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the National Basketball Association (NBA). Mr. Sterling filed a civil suit against the NBA and the commissioner for breach of fiduciary duty claims after the commissioner banned him from the NBA and fined him $2.5 million dollars (Unger, 2014). Mr. Sterling is seeking damages of more than $1 billion. The author is writing the article to discuss in detail, the complaints brought forth by Mr. Sterling. Did the NBA and Mr. Silver in fact owe Mr. Sterling the fiduciary duties listed on the complaint because of a breach of contract (Unger, 2014)? Thesis of the article The thesis of the above article is that Mr. Sterling must prove there was an existence of a fiduciary relationship with the defendant, misconduct, and damages that were caused by the NBA fiduciary’s breach (Unger, 2013). Key Points/facts The key point evident in the article is the private conversation between Mr. Sterling and his then girlfriend Vivian Stiviano. Vivian Stiviano recorded the conversation between her and Mr. Sterling without his knowledge. Mr.......

Words: 514 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

The Most Important Fiduciary Duty Is the Duty of Loyalty. the Concept Is Simple: the Decision Makers Within the Company Should Act in the Interests of the Company, and Not in Their Own Interests. the Easiest Way to

...Principal Fiduciary Duties of Boards of Directors Presentation at Third Asian Roundtable on Corporate Governance Singapore, 4 April 2001 Professor Bernard S. Black Stanford Law School bblack@stanford.edu 1-650-725-9845 Introduction I want to offer an overview of the principal fiduciary duties of boards of directors. I will speak mostly from a common law perspective. Fiduciary duties of directors were first elaborated by common law judges, operating without any guidance from the formal written law. Indeed, the company laws of the United States, and many other common law jurisdictions, contain no statement at all of the core fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. The fiduciary duties of directors are continuing to evolve, again without formal written law. The classic statement, still found in many American law school textbooks, is that directors owe to shareholders, or perhaps to the corporation, two basic fiduciary duties: the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. I believe that this is too simple a picture. There are at least two additional core duties that directors have today: a duty of disclosure, and a duty that has no precise name, that I will call the duty of extra care when your company is a takeover target. I want to offer, for each of these duties, a brief statement of the duty, why it exists; and how the duty is enforced or, sometimes, not enforced. I will speak about duties of directors, but these duties apply to officers......

Words: 2851 - Pages: 12

Free Essay

Enter Deli

...1. Were there any abuses of power by the management and breach of fiduciary on the part of the directors? Yes, there are breached of fiduciary duties by the management or directors of Delima Enterprise Sdn Bhd. In general, directors take up a fiduciary position or relationship with the company. A fiduciary relationship is the relationship between a person in a position of trust in which the fiduciary and the person for whose benefit the fiduciary acts. In other words, a fiduciary’s powers are exercised on behalf of others who are being in a position of dependence. In this case, directors of Delima Enterprise Sdn Bhd have fiduciary duties to the shareholders and stakeholders of the company. In addition, they also control property in which others have an interest. According to Section 132(1) of Companies Act 1965, a director shall at all times act honestly and use reasonable diligence in the discharge of the duties of his office. The directors have the following duties as being in fiduciary position: a. Duty to exercise power in good faith and in the interest of the company. b. Duty to avoid conflict of interest. c. Duty to exercise power for the proper purpose. a. Duty to exercise power in good faith and in the interest of company The directors of a company must exercise their powers in good faith and in the best interest of the company as a whole. It means that, directors of the company must act in the interest of the shareholders as a collective group......

Words: 880 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Business of Today

...Introduction: Section 2(13) of company’s act defines a director may be defined as a person having control over the direction, conduct, management, or superintendence of affairs of a company. Any person in accordance with whose direction or instructions, the board of directors of a company is custom to act is deemed to be a director of a company. Section 2 (6) of the company’s act states that the directors are collectively referred to as board of directors are simply the borad. Directors being pillars of corporate governance (Cowan, 2004) should at all times act honestly and use reasonable diligence in the discharge of their duties. This is more so in light of recent major corporate issues like ENRON & Worldcomm in the United States and the Transmile case in Malaysia. In essence directors are agents of the company and as agents, they owe a duty of trust to the company and shall do their utmost to put the interest of the company first before personal ones. Directors of a company are responsible in managing the affairs and business of the company. Some or each and every one of the shareholders will normally be involved in the company’s management for those company that are smaller in size, particularly small family companies. On the other hand, bigger company will have managers that specialized only in the conduction to the company’s business. These managers may only own a small proportion of the company’ shares. According to s142 of the Companies Act 1965, a company must...

Words: 762 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Article Sum

...Article Summary ENLARGING AN EMPLOYER'S FIDUCIARY HAT: VARITY CORP. V. HOWE INCREASES EMPLOYERS'; EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY WHEN THEY ACT AS ERISA FIDUCIARIES -Shelly Ward - Ward’s article discusses the circumstances surrounding the 1996 Supreme Court case: Variety corp. V. Howe - The court ruled that an individual may recover damages stemming from the a breach of fiduciary duty by a plan’s administrator - Ward explains that ERISA’s principles were based on the common law governing trusts; trust laws were also used in interpreting cases involving ERISA - Variety V. Howe was unique because trust law was utilized to a large extent rather than ERISA itself - Ward says ERISA was intended to be a “pension Bill of Rights” and that it required a person to act in a “fiduciary capacity” to manage the plan - Terms are ambiguous in ERISA in regards to whom is able to be granted relief when there is a breach of the fiduciary duty. (502) - In Mass. Mutual Life Insurance V. Russel, the Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot sue for extra-contractual damages; ERISA does not imply this right - In Mertens V. Hewitt associates the Supreme Court ruled that an individual is not entitled to relief from a nonfiduciary who participates in a breach of a fiduciary duty - Many circuits have adopted similar rulings in that an individual cannot be granted relief concerning a breach of the fiduciary duty states in ERISA. Some other circuits interpret the Supreme Court rulings differently.......

Words: 406 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

“How to Restore the Fiduciary Relationship, a Conversation with Eliot Spitzer

...TN: “How to Restore the Fiduciary Relationship, a conversation with Eliot Spitzer” 1/What does the term “fiduciary duty” mean? RELATIONSHIP TRUST INTERESTS A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. —Bristol & West Builg Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at 18 per , Lord Millett The term fiduciary duty in economics it’s referred to the written or unwritten duty that the fiduciary have towards their clients or shareholder. This relationship it’s based on the trust that clients/shareholder have in the Management or in the financial institution; besides these are delegated to satisfy the interests and the needs of client/shareholder, without taking advantage from their position ( potential conflict of interests). Cite; and explain The fiduciary duty it’s the relationship that exist between shareholders and top management, and between clients and financial institution (i.e. Mutual funds). The relationship it’s based on the confidence/trust that the clients or the shareholder have in the top management or the financial institutions; besides, these are delegated to satisfy the interest of the shareholder/client and not to take advantages of the their powerful position. 2/Who is Eliot Spitzer and what is he best known for? Eliot Spritzer was the general attorney of the New York State. He became famous......

Words: 284 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Scenario1

...Factual Scenario 1 Jeremy Jip is not considered Lulu’s employee. Based on the criteria used by the courts to decide whether a worker is categorized as an employee or independent contractor, Jeremy wouldn’t be considered Lulu’s employee. He would be considered an independent contractor because Lulu has no control over the details of Jeremy’s work performance. She does not exercise considerable control of his work, his occupation is distinctly different from that of Lulu’s, his work is usually done without supervision, Lulu does not supply his tools for his occupation, and the job that he’s hired for requires a high degree of skill. Also, his term of employment is only until the house is sold and his one-time fee is paid at the completion of the sale. According to the text, an independent contractor is “a person who contracts with another to do something for him or her but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the others right to control with respect to his or her physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking. He or she may not be an agent” (Clarkson, Miller, Cross, 2012, p. 625). Lulu is not liable for Mary and Ollie’s injuries because, even though Jeremy Jip is an agent representing LuLu Lowlife, his day to day activities are still those of an independent contractor, not an employee. According to the text “To determine whether the relationship of the parties is that of employer and servant or that of employer and independent contractor, the primary......

Words: 674 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Laws 310 Week 7

...qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer...

Words: 1516 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Fiduciary

...Introduction The concept of fiduciary obligations or duty is one of the most important areas in Australian law. In this project, I will try to illustrate and explain the duties in three kinds of relationships including the relationship between a director and a company, the relationship between the promoters and the corporation and the relationship between business partners. In each relationship, what kinds of the fiduciary duties should be performed is elaborated in details. The aim of the project is to help the readers to understand what “fiduciary obligations” actually means in Australian law. Fiduciary Duty of Directors According to the general law and the Corporations Act ss181 -184, as fiduciaries, the directors must have the fairness, loyalty and good faith when they implement the discretions and powers entitled to them. They cannot use their position of trust to benefit themselves at the expenses of the business without the company’s consent and full knowledge. In other words, we can say since the directors are acting on behalf of their company, they owe the duties of loyalty and good faith due to the fiduciary relationship with the companies. In addition, refer to the Corporation Act ss180, and the case of Percival v Wright 1902, the directors owed duties to the company but not shareholders individually. On the other hand, in depth, the fiduciary obligations of the directors can be divided into four aspects: 1. Directors have the duty to act in good faith for......

Words: 2683 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Case Study

...breach of fiduciary on the part of the director? Yes, there abuses of power by the management and breach of fiduciary on the part of the director. Abuse of power is the act of using ones position of power in an abusive way, this can take many form such taking advantage of someone, gaining access to information that should not be accessible to the public or just manipulating someone with the ability to punish them if they do not comply. Breach of fiduciary duty is people in position on the trust or fiduciary relationship such as director, high level of employees of business owe certain duties of their principles. According to this case, there some issue that show the abuses of power by the management and breach of fiduciary on the part of the director. The issue are: 1. En.Zayed and Pn.Hashimah tried to negotiate with the Auditor to not qualify the Financial Statement. Base on this issue, under the statutory duty of company act, section 181(1), Duty to Act in Good Faith. ‘A director of the corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties. Section 181(1)(a) In the good faith in the best interests of corporation and Section 181(1)(b) for a proper purpose. Section 132(1), a director shall at all-time acts honestly. Section 169 and ninth schedule of the companies Act 1965, financial information that companies are required to disclose are mainly though the director report and financial report. According to section 174(2) company act 1965, it auditor......

Words: 912 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Business Law

...Robert W. MOSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary BERTRAM, Defendant-Appellee SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 115 N.M. 766; 858 P.2d 854; 1993 N.M. LEXIS 221; 32 N.M. St. B. Bull. 693 August 10, 1993, Decided OPINION BY: FROST This appeal from a summary judgment requires us to determine whether a real estate seller's agent owes a fiduciary duty to a prospective purchaser when the seller's agent and the purchaser's real estate agent work for the same real estate broker. The district court held that there is no such fiduciary duty, and we agree.The material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff-appellant Robert Moser, an individual from California interested in purchasing investment realty in New Mexico, sued defendant-appellee Mary Bertram, a real estate sales agent employed by the Santa Fe brokerage firm of Vidal Garcia doing business as Century 21 Blue Chip Realty ("Blue Chip"), for breach of fiduciary duty. Bertram was listing agent for property that Moser wanted to purchase, a residence located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Moser hired Dolores Lee as his buyer's agent to secure his acquisition of the property. Lee, like Bertram, was employed by Blue Chip. With Lee's assistance, Moser contracted to purchase the property contingent upon his acquisition of financing by July 20, 1988. Moser was unable to secure financing by this date and the seller granted him an extension... Moser failed to secure the necessary financing by the new deadline, and the agreement terminated. Approximately......

Words: 1449 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Corporations Law

...Issues Based on the case scenario, Doris, Betty, and Charlie formed a company called Bechdo Pty Ltd. The three members are the directors and Betty who is major shareholder holds 40% followed by Charlie and Doris who hold 20% each while the 20% is held by the rest. Based on the company constitution, a managing director has capacity to enter into a contract o behalf of the company up to a maximum of $100,000. Moreover, he/she can enter into contracts to the value of $900,000 upon getting consent for the board of directors. In this case, Bechdo Pty Ltd operates without a managing director since none was elected. The major issue is that Betty being the majority shareholder went ahead and entered into contract with BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and Con Development Ltd. All the contracts made were over USD 100, 000, and the last two were over USD 900,000. Upon realization of the contracts, a meeting was convened and a resolution was made that stated that Betty acted improperly and failed to discuss the contracts with board members. As a result, the three contracts have been labeled as void and ultra vires and Bechdo Pty does not recognize them. The paper seeks to advise, Bechdo Pty Ltd, BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and Con Development Ltd in regard to their liabilities and legal rights to the contract. Moreover, advice is given on legal grounds that may be taken by Bechdo Pty Ltd against Betty, Charlie, and Doris. Rules First, a corporation or a limited company is an artificial entity which...

Words: 3070 - Pages: 13