commercial law

Q1 - Statue- crimin" rel="nofollow">inal. Employee within" rel="nofollow">in the scope of employment. Q2- Explanin" rel="nofollow">ing rules of attributions Primary - constitution General - negligence action(IMPORTANT) , negligent Misstatement, Vicarious Liability (IMPORTANT) Tort Contract - Agency Special - Statutes ASSESSMENT TWO: 40 MARKS (40% OF THE COURSE MARK - 2000 words) 1. In an article on the case of Chirnside v Fay entitled “Fiduciary duties and join" rel="nofollow">int venturers” the author of the article, Bram van Melle, said: “Chirnside throws New Zealand commercial law in" rel="nofollow">into confusion.” Explain" rel="nofollow">in what is meant by “fiduciary duties” and “join" rel="nofollow">int venture”. Do you agree that the case of Chirnside v Fay does throw New Zealand commercial law in" rel="nofollow">into confusion? Why or why not? 2. David, Maddie and Herbert are studyin" rel="nofollow">ing IT subjects together at University in" rel="nofollow">in Auckland and over coffee one day talk about the opportunities available for profitable ventures. Herbert is in" rel="nofollow">interested in" rel="nofollow">in buildin" rel="nofollow">ing new hardware, Maddie starts work on developin" rel="nofollow">ing new software and David considers marketin" rel="nofollow">ing opportunities. David and Maddie make good progress although they rarely see Herbert. David fin" rel="nofollow">inally in" rel="nofollow">introduces Maddie to a potential buyer he has found in" rel="nofollow">in Wellin" rel="nofollow">ington. The buyer is delighted with Maddie’s software and signs a contract with her to buy and in" rel="nofollow">install her software. Maddie however has lost faith in" rel="nofollow">in David and Herbert and decides to carry on with the contract and keep the money for herself. David is furious when he fin" rel="nofollow">inds out as he has spent considerable time and money in" rel="nofollow">in locatin" rel="nofollow">ing marketin" rel="nofollow">ing opportunities in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing travellin" rel="nofollow">ing all over Auckland, Wellin" rel="nofollow">ington and Christchurch talkin" rel="nofollow">ing to IT busin" rel="nofollow">inesses. David thin" rel="nofollow">inks he should share in" rel="nofollow">in the profit. Herbert thin" rel="nofollow">inks that if David gets a share then he should too. Unfortunately, the three of them never came to any firm agreement about what the nature of their activity was. No contract was entered in" rel="nofollow">into although David and Maddie discussed doin" rel="nofollow">ing that in" rel="nofollow">in the future. Why would the courts be likely to fin" rel="nofollow">ind this is a join" rel="nofollow">int venture? Would David and/or Herbert have any remedies again" rel="nofollow">inst Maddie? Suggested readin" rel="nofollow">ings in" rel="nofollow">include: Webster Malcolm and Fitzpatrick “Fiduciary Obligations” http://www.lawlin" rel="nofollow">ink.co.nz/articles.php?articleid=39 – posted on blackboard Bram van Melle “Fiduciary duties and join" rel="nofollow">int venturers” [2007] NZLJ 32 – posted on blackboard. Susan Watson (ed) The Law of Busin" rel="nofollow">iness Organisations (5th ed, Palatin" rel="nofollow">ine Press, Auckland, 2009) Cases: Chirnside v Fay [2007] 1 NZLR 433 NOTE: Do not use APA referencin" rel="nofollow">ing. You must use law style referencin" rel="nofollow">ing for citation of sources (footnotes). See the note on referencin" rel="nofollow">ing posted in" rel="nofollow">in the assignments folder.