Question 1 [10 marks]
During the end 2009-16 David was filled as a sales figurative for Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd, a association which distributes hair-care products throughout South Australia. A prognostical of his abridge was that if he should liberty the association, he could not attract in the hair-product assiduity for five years.
In 2017 he left Nu Sampoo Pty Ltd and registered a association determined Hair-Glo Pty Ltd. David owns 99% of the shares in the association. The other 1% is owned by his sister, Monica, whom he elected as unique manager and CEO. In her magnitude as CEO, Monica prognostics a abridge on interest of the association delay David, appointing David as Operations Manager for Hair-Glo. The association operates from Adelaide and sells shampoo and conditioner to hairdressing salons throughout South Australia, divers of which distinguish David from his persuadeing delay Nu Shampoo. Monica took no free keep-akeep-aloof in the prevalent of the association, akeep-aloof from having prognosticed a abridge on interest of Hair-Glo delay Standard Bank in 2017, prelude out a mortgage of $ 1 pet as start-up cardinal. No pledge was exactd for the mortgage by the bank.
The association did well-mannered-behaved-behaved during 2017 and 2018, but in existing 2019 was not telling to reward a mortgage driblet of $ 100 000 attributable to Standard Bank Ltd. David comes to you for education behind receiving two letters: One from Nu Shampoo Pty Ltd requiring him to stop the operations of Hair-Glo Ltd in South Australia, the other from Standard Bank Ltd unpromising to sue him personally for $ 100 000. Advise him as to his pose, citing all bearing legitimate example.
Please music that you should usurp that the cohibition of exchange passage in the abridge that David had delay Nu Shampoo is strong beneath the law of abridge.
Question 2 [10 marks]
Four friends – Anne, Mary, Jane and Sarah – who met at university disequalize as medical practitioners in the similar year. Because they all get on so well-mannered-behaved-behaved and commission each other’s judgement, they determine to arrange a keep-aunion of unconcealed practitioners in Western Sydney, which they persuade Your National Doctor. They prognostic a keep-aunion concord in prognosticals of which they are all similar keep-apartners. The concord to-boot states that each keep-aspouse succeed keep example to penetrate into abridges of up to $ 10 000, but that abridges in debauchery of that aggregate exact the concord of all the keep-apartners.
Anne and Mary go overseas one year, leaving Jane and Sarah to run the exercitation. When they repay, they descry that the follattributable has happened:
Just anteriorly she went abroad, Anne had noticed that the exercitation had closely run out of brochure for the printer, so she left a music for Jane, asking her to ordain a new contribute. When Anne and Mary repayed, they set that Jane had compensated $ 2 000 to buy printer brochures from a duty run by her boyfriend, since the common supplier would keep charged $ 1 200 for the similar aggregate of brochure. They are to-boot displeased to invent two invoices, addressed to Your National Doctor, antepast payment: One is from United Medical Suppliers Pty Ltd for $ 13 000 rate of medical instruments ordained by Jane. The other is for $ 2 000 from Uber Australia Ltd for driver luxuriance manner ordained by Sarah, who had previously argued that the four doctors should run a national ride-share advantage on days when the exercitation was not occupied.
Advise Anne and Mary as to what liabilities originate from the overhead axioms, citing bearing legitimate example