Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Company & Association Law Assessment Item 1- 2014. It needs to be at least 3750 words.Mr. James acquired 49% in a same mining lease that was traded
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Company & Association Law Assessment Item 1- 2014. It needs to be at least 3750 words.
Mr. James acquired 49% in a same mining lease that was traded in the partnership between Pitgate and MGM. The Public Trustee represented the estate of Mr. James in the partnership and as a director of Pitgate. Similarly, the interest of Mr. Meyer in the partnership was represented by MGM. Thus, the involvement of these parties either directly or impliedly in the partnership constituted towards legal proceedings of so many parties.
The major legal issue to be determined with regards to MDLA 415 was firmly related to rights and benefits of Mr. Meyer in relation to the partnership. In this regard, the legal issue to be determined was whether Mr. Meyer is qualified to the benefit of an application for a Mineral Development Licence and whether the rights and interests possessed by him with respect to the application of MDLA 415 were for the benefit of the partnership or were solely for his own benefit.
With respect to MDLA 295 and MLDA 415, the first respondent namely Ian Derek Meyer argued that he had not treated Mr. James’s interest in MDLA 295 as part of the Chillagoe Perlite business. Ian Derek Meyer further clarifies that inclusion of MDLA 295 as an asset to be held by the applicants in accordance with the Court order was intended to assist in the finalisation of the administration of Mr James’s estate. As far as MDLA 415 is concerned, he argued that MDLA 415 was made to protect his personal interest, and that of his company “as a potential future operator of the Chillagoe Perlite venture”.
With respect to the requirements for ‘partners to account to the firm’ in respect of MDLA 415, the Applicants alleged that Mr. Meyer did not classify assets or property, which the respondent could acknowledge as theirs. Instead, a list entailing all items that appeared to be recognized as partnership property was provided. Besides, the Applicants claimed that the accounts were a strong suggestion, which signified that no effort was made to bring the
