论文代写:合资企业和合作伙伴
论文代写:合资企业和合作伙伴
1。一家名为法拉的导演伊莱亚斯先生进入与另一家公司名叫Say-Dee制定合资单位土地11号在伯伍德,新南威尔士州。合资公司的条款是这样Say-Dee呈现大部分的资本和法拉是参与管理的过程。
2。很明显在一段时间内,15和13号的土地买11号以开发土地。一些单位的数量15和13被伊莱亚斯先生的家庭购买。本收购背后的主要动机是最终完成土地的所有权在这些特定的单位。
据称由Say-Dee购买家庭单位15和13号的伊莱亚斯先生违反了受托责任向Say-Dee作为他们的合资企业。
此外,Say-Dee提出的论点是,购买这些属性不能没有透露这家合资企业的机会,从而使其购买指定的属性。因此,一个关键的机会是伊莱亚斯先生从不同的合资企业的基本信托责任的忠诚。
提供的判断高等法院的一个至关重要的方面接受了法拉和伊莱亚斯先生受托责任向Say-Dee作为合资企业的一部分。,事实上,它是由高等法院认为这是信托关系中各方参与——尽管不是合作的关系,在一个合资企业。必须考虑,如果问题是高等法院基于接洽有合作关系,考虑到这一事实的存在标记的伙伴关系。一样的可能性很低的关系描述当事人是合资公司所有的时间。(来源:法拉建筑v Say-Dee[2007]HCA 22)
2. It became evident over a period of time that the land at number 15 and 13 were to be bought so as to develop in land number 11. Some of the units of Number 15 and 13 were purchased by Mr. Elias’ family. The main motive behind this purchase was to eventually have the ownership of the complete land in those specific units.
It was alleged by Say-Dee that the purchase of units at Number 15 and 13 by the family of Mr. Elias breached the fiduciary duties towards Say-Dee as they were in a Joint venture.
Moreover, the arguments presented by Say-Dee were that the purchase of those properties couldn’t be done without revealing the opportunity to the Joint Venture and thus rendering it to buy the specified properties. Hence, a key opportunity was diverted by Mr. Elias from the Joint Venture which was varying with the basic fiduciary duty of loyalty.
The judgment provided by the High court had a crucial aspect in which it accepted the fact that Farah and Mr. Elias has fiduciary duties towards Say-Dee as a part of the joint venture. As a matter of fact, it was assumed by the High Court that it was in a fiduciary relationship that the parties were involved – although the relationship was not in a partnership and was in a joint venture. It must be taken into consideration that if the issue was approached by the High Court based on the fact that there has been a partnership, taking into account the fact that there was a presence of indicia of a partnership. The possibility of the same is very low as the relationship described by the parties was as a joint venture all the times. (Source: Farah Constructions v Say-Dee [2007] HCA 22)
