business law

0

Business Low
Question 1   Section 7 of Copyright Act 1987 defines “literary work” to include what material."literary work" includes -(a) novels, stories, books, pamphlets, manuscripts, poetical works and other writings;(b) encyclopaedias, dictionaries and other works of reference;(c) tables or compilations, whether or not expressed in words, figures or symbols and whether or nor in a visible form;
(d) plays, dramas, stage directions, film scenarios, broadcasting scripts, choreographic works and pantomimes;
(e) computer program;(f) lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature;(g) treatises, histories, biographies, essays and articles;
(h)letters, reports and memoranda;
2. explain with reference to the relevant sections in the contract act 1950 and example of case law , the duties of and agent towards his/her principal(from chapter agency)

Agent’s duties include:
1. Discharge his or her duties with appropriate care and diligence. 2. Promptly hand over to the principal all monies collected on principal’s behalf.  3.  Discharge his or her duties with appropriate care and diligence. 4. Avoid conflict between his or her personal interests and those of the principal.  5. Act within the scope of authority or power delegated by the principal.Other duties of an agent include:
not to acquire any material benefit from a third party in connection with transactions conducted or through the use of his/her positions as an agent
to act reasonably and to refrain from conduct that is likely to damage the principal’s enterprise
to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal
to to take action only within the scope of the his/her actual authority
act with the care, competence, and diligence normally exercised by agents in similar circumstances
For example:
CHAUDHRY
-v-
PRABHAKAR AND ANOTHER

May, Stocker and Stuart-Smith L.JJ.1988 April 27, 29; May 20-29Solicitors: Khan & Co.; Benson Mazure & Co.
Agency-Gratuitous agent-Purchase of second-hand car-Friend undertaking to find car for principal to buy-Friend stating car had not been in accident-Principal relying on agent’s advice buying car-Car unroadworthy as result of previous accident--Whether friend in breach of duty owed to principal-Standard of care-Whether owing principal duty of care not to make mis-statements
The plaintiff, a woman aged 26 who had just passed her driving test but who knew little about cars, asked the first defendant, a close friend, to find a suitable second-hand car for her to buy, stipulating that it should not have been involved in an accident. He agreed to do so for no payment. He was not a mechanic but had had a lot to do with motor cars and was regarded by the plaintiff as knowing much more about them than she did. He found a car which the second defendant, a car sprayer and panel beater whom he had not previously met, had for sale. The first defendant realised that the bonnet had been crumpled and straightened or replaced, but he nevertheless did not ask the second defendant if it had been in an accident and told the plaintiff that it was in very good condition and that he highly recommended it; he told her that the second defendant was a friend and when she asked if the car had been in an accident he said that it had not and that she need not have it examined by a mechanic. Relying on those assurances the plaintiff bought the car. It was subsequently discovered that the car had been involved in an accident and was unroadworthy and worthless; repairs had been carried out by the second defendant in such a way as to conceal and disguise the true state of affairs. On the plaintiffs action for damages the deputy judge gave judgment for her against the second defendant on the basis that he had been in breach of the implied term that the car was of merchantable quality, and against the first defendant on the footing that he had owed the plaintiff a duty of care at least to inquire if the car had been in an accident and that he had been in breach of that duty.




3. explain with reference to the relevant sections in the contract act 1950 and example of case law the duties of a principal towards his/her agent (from chapter agency)
A principal owes certain contractual duties to his/her agent.  Correlative with the duties of an agent to serve a principal loyally and obediently, a principal’s primary duties to his/her agent include:
not to accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the Principal. Agents can represent the interests of more than one Principal, conflicting or potentially conflicting, only on the basis of full and timely disclosure or where the different agencies are based on a limited form of authority to prevent a situation where the Agent's loyalty to the any one of the multiple Principals is compromised. For this purpose, express clauses in the agreement signed by each Principal with the Agent may identify specific types or categories of activities that do not breach the duty of loyalty and so long as these exceptions are not unreasonable, they bind the Principals.
not to make a private profit or unjustly enrich himself from the agency relationship. Principals usually include a power in their contract with the Agents allowing them to inspect the Agents' accounts if reasonable suspicion of improper behavior emerges.

To compensate the agent as agreed;
To indemnify and protect the agent against claims, liabilities, and expenses incurred in discharging the duties assigned by the principal
Because of the fiduciary relationship, a principal owes his/her agent a duty of good faith and fair dealing. However, a principal can be relieved of contractual obligations by an agent’s prior breach of contract.
A principal has a duty to act in accordance with the express and implied terms of any contract between a principal and an agent.
When an agent acts within the scope of actual authority, the principal is liable to indemnify the agent for payments made during the course of the relationship irrespective of whether the expenditure was expressly authorized or merely necessary in promoting the principal’s business.

 

asked Mar 31 '11 at 02:51 zhangkang New member

1 answer


0

As a rule, in this forum, we don't edit and revise more than a few sentences.  If you want an edit or revision of this text, please subscribe at Grammarly.com.

 

 

 

 

link comment answered Mar 31 '11 at 13:09 Kimberly Expert

Your answer


Write at least 20 characters

Have a question about English grammar, style or vocabulary use? Ask now to get help from Grammarly experts for FREE.