美国论文代写价格：法案分析
美国论文代写价格：法案分析
问题:弗雷达在该案件中违反职责，采取了应有的谨慎技巧和勤勉。问题在于，要从弗雷达的角度来评价这种情况是否有发言权。法律:在这种情况下，2001年《公司法》下的法定抗辩是正确的。法定抗辩以商事判决规则、信赖抗辩和委托抗辩的形式出现。商业判断规则是一种辩护，有助于在董事认为他们做出了正确决定的情况下，在合法性和善意的情况下保护董事(Branson, 2001)。它进一步说明法院不愿意干预商业决定。该规则不仅保护董事不受一般法律的保护，而且在法律上保护董事不受注意义务的保护。申请:从案例中可以明显看出，弗雷达相信她所做的决定将帮助公司以相当大的方式发展，但这并没有发生，因为弗雷达没有阅读报告。她对这些要求不感兴趣，但行事诚实。根据法案，她这样做是因为她理性地相信这个决定是为了公司的利益(布兰森，2001)。
整个导演之间没有交谈或讨论，这导致了混乱。根据Freda在公司内部的地位，这里可以考虑另一个案例的参考，例如Australian Securities and Investments Commission vs Healey case(2011)。对于这个案例，需要使用业务判断规则，Freda的案例也是如此。结论:因此，可以得出结论，弗雷达有使用商业判断规则作为法定抗辩事由保护自己的权利。这一保密协议已经起草成一个服务水平协议与BLPL，它将保持之间的Tiptruck和BLPL(布兰森，2001)。为防止机密信息未经授权披露，披露方受尊重的办公室将在此受益。双方同意就保密性质的具体专有披露和信息建立保密性质的关系。该协议将约束两家公司提供运输服务，这将有助于简化两家公司的任务，并带来很多好处。
美国论文代写价格：法案分析
Issue: Due care skill and diligence under duty breach has taken place by Freda in the case. The issue lies in evaluating whether there is any say in the situation from the perspective of Freda or not. Law: Statutory defences under Corporations Act of 2001 are under perspective in this situation. The statutory defences come forward in the form of business judgment rule, reliance based defence and delegation defence. The rule of business judgment is a defence which helps in protecting directors in circumstances where under legitimacy and with good faith the director believed that right decision was made by them (Branson, 2001). It further depicts the reluctance of the court towards business decisions interference. The rule protects the director not only against the general law but also against the care duty statutorily. This has been protected under section 180 (2). Application: From the case provided, it was evident that Freda believed the decision taken by her will help the company to grow in a considerable manner but this did not occur because Freda did not read the report. She had disinterestedness in the requirements but acted in good faith. Under the Act, she acted in this way because she believed rationally that the decision is for the company benefit (Branson, 2001).
The entire director’s did not talk or discuss among themselves and this had led towards the chaos. Based upon Freda’s position within the company, the reference of another case can be considered here, for example the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission vs Healey case (2011). As per this case, business judgement rule was called for and the same is applicable in Freda’s case. Conclusion: Therefore, it can be concluded that Freda had the right of protecting herself through use of business judgment rule as a statutory defence. This non-disclosure agreement has been drafted to be entered into a service level agreement with BLPL and it will remain between Tiptruck and BLPL (Branson, 2001). The disclosing parties’ respected offices will be of benefit here for the purpose to prevent the confidential information unauthorized disclosure. The parties are in agreement for entering into a relationship of confidential nature with regard to the specific proprietary disclosure and information of confidential nature. The agreement will bind the companies to provide haulage services that will help in simplifying the tasks for both the companies and offer much benefit.
