essay格式：了解《2002年公司法》中的职责是否适用于TCL

essay格式：了解《2002年公司法》中的职责是否适用于TCL

问题:这里的问题是了解《2002年公司法》第181-183条中的职责是否适用于TCL。法律:第181节描述了诚信与民事义务的适用。它说的是，一个直接或公司需要行使权力，以及履行职责，在诚信的基础上，公司的最大利益和适当的目的。此外，本节规定，涉及第(1)款违犯行为的人会导致违反该节(Blumberg, 2004)。《2001年公司法》第182条规定了在民事机关义务下的职位使用。董事或公司雇员如属本节所述，绝不可利用职务不当，为自己或其他公司或个人谋取利益。此外，职位滥用不应造成基于公司的损害(Veasey, 2001)。《公司法》(2001)第183条规定了在民事机关的义务下过度使用信息。
根据本节获得数据的个人，由于他们是董事或公司雇员，永远不应该利用信息从他们自己或他人获得利益。此外，这些信息绝不能用来损害公司利益。即使某人不是高级职员或公司董事，该职责仍将继续。应用:当考虑将这些章节应用于案例时，很明显，所有董事对他们的组织都有责任(Branson, 2001)。这一责任需要与目标很好地协调一致，但无论在何处发生滥用。它会导致某种形式的不当行为。然而，这些条款的适用是显而易见的，因为董事有义务不滥用信息，诚实行事，不滥用职位。这里一个适用的例子是Prest vs Prest (2013) 2 AC 415 at(41)。结论:这是为了得出结论，本节适用于有关董事职责的案件。

essay格式：了解《2002年公司法》中的职责是否适用于TCL

Issue: The issue here is to understand whether the duties in Corporations Act 2002, Sections 181-183 are applicable to TCL or not. Law: The Section 181 depicts good faith with civil obligations applicable. It says that a direct or corporate needs to exercise the power as well as duties discharge under good faith in the corporation’s best interest and for an appropriate purpose. Furthermore, this section entail that a person involved in a subsection (1) contravention results in contravening such a sub-section (Blumberg, 2004). Section 182 of the corporations Act 2001 entails position use under obligations of civil authority. A director or corporate employee as per this section of a corporate needs never use their position in an improper manner for gaining benefit of their selves or of some other company or individual. Also, the position misuse should not be done for causing corporation based detriment (Veasey, 2001). The Section 183 of the Corporations Act (2001) entails over utilization of information under obligations of civil authority.
An individual obtaining data as per this section due to the fact that they are directors or corporate employees, never should make use of information for gaining benefit from their selves or others. Also this information should never be used for causing a detriment to the corporate. The duty continues even when a person is not an officer or corporate director. Application: When considering the application of these sections to the case, it is evident that all the directors have a duty towards their organization (Branson, 2001). The duty needs to be well in alignment with the objectives but wherever misuse takes place. It results in some form of misconduct. However, the application of these sections is evident because the directors are obligated not to misuse information, act in good faith and not to misuse position. Here example of a case applicable is Prest vs Prest (2013) 2 AC 415 at (41). Conclusion: This is to conclude that the sections are applicable to the case with regard to the duties of the directors.