Business Law Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

Question: Describe about the Business Law for Singapore Journal of Legal Studie? Answer: Analysis: Instructions: Jacob William is the Managing Director of William Parts limited and they had a business relationship with Halton Engines Ltd. They generally traded for selling and buying different parts manufactured by the clients company. The client William clarified the matter that the company create more issues in dealing with their company. This time they provide certain goods and wait for the payment. But they refused to pay the amount. On another instance the client found the fact that the original name of the shareholders are not found. The client is surprised about the activity. So, the client now wants to get back the amount for those goods which he delivered to Halton. They are not intended to pay the amount by stating that they are not bound to pay it. They want to set off the amount with another undisputed amount of 20,000 which our client needs to pay to the Halton. On the other hand our client want to know about the surprising feature of this company thats why the name of the shareholders are not mentioned the proper registration process. The special time of formations are legal or not are the main concerns in this matter. Legal Issues: There are mainly two legal issues: Whether the William Parts Ltd has any legal claim on the money that is unpaid to them? Can they are entitled to get the full payment for the goods they delivered to Halton? Whether the formation of hidden shareholder for the company Halton is legal formation? Report into Legal Issue: The contract of sale between the seller and buyer state that the ownership of the goods are needs to be delivered if the price is paid. Each of the party have the right to cancel the contract within 7 days and the verbal contract is also enough. In this regard William wants to recover the amount from the Halton. They stated that they letter was reached to them after the stipulated so, they are not entitled to cancel the contract. But according to the terms of the contract the oral communication need to be made within 7 days followed by the written confirmation and there is no specific time for sending of written communication. In this regard it is essential that the client William has the authority to claim the money. According to Sales of Goods Act the client is an unpaid seller and he has the right to get back the goods or the amount of the goods. If the buyer is going to be insolvent, the unpaid seller has the right to get the payment or can stop the goods in transition according to the Act. If the goods are collected the unpaid seller has the right to get the payment.[1] The clause 31 of the contract claimed that the buyer has no right to claim for any set off for any amount in action relating to price of goods. Now, in this case, William has the right to get 28,000 in full. No claim for the set off can be entertained in this regard[2]. So, Halton has no right to claim for the set off and as the authority for the unpaid seller, the William have the authority to get the full amount from buyer [3]. Conclusions: The right of unpaid seller is declared under the law of UK. The unpaid seller has the right to get the entire unpaid amount which is unpaid or else can have the authority sue the buyer for unpaid amount[4]. Report into a Legal Issue: A nominee shareholder is considered to be a substitute for a actual shareholder and they acts for a particular client. Listing the name of nominee shareholders is advantageous at that time community access to the information of any company proceedings or general public search the name of the shareholder companies which is obtainable. If any opponent of the company found out the name of the directors, they will merely found out the name of the nominee shareholder but could not found the name of the actual directors. This policy is applicable to apply the privacy in the system. So the competitive businesses can take the name of the actual shareholders from the system. At the same time as maximum people choose for nominee shareholder facilities for cause of privacy. Any nominee shareholder may be requisite to perform definite actions for a customer who is not an inhabitant any particular area in that place the shares in the corporation are possessed These actions may comprise executing documents, initiating or operation banking operations, and additional proceedings which simply citizens or inhabitants of a specific jurisdiction are authorized to do, even for a third-party. Normal shareholders characteristically vary from the action of the nominee shareholders, as they inclined to possess shares openly in these corporations or are merely performing for the corporations in which they nominees have concentrations. Nominee shareholders, alternatively, grasp shares in faith but they are not treated as beneficial owners. They did not have any particular relationship with the company[5]. Business associations with nominee shareholders are characteristically administered by a statement of trust or in a form of power of attorney certificate which particulars the character of the nominee association and the lawful necessities of that association. Having a normal shareholder stand for the third-party without the practice of nominee requirements is ill-advised and might not be enclosed for in the rule if the normal shareholder infringed the character of such an understanding[6]. Conclusions: Under the law of UK, if the company want to register their service under the nominee shareholder the company need to register with HMRC if the business is on trust or company service[7]. So the formation is legal under the law of UK. A company can defiantly run its business with the nominee shareholders and then the name of the actual shareholders cannot be accessed by the general public. There is nothing illegal in this situation. Primary Sources: Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676is a primary source for this matter because it defines and discuss the issues of unpaid seller Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd [2004] EWHC 1056 (Ch): This case is used as primary source. The case state that the nominee shareholders legal and they are also subject to the unfair prejudice issues mentioned under section 994 of Companies Act 2006. Companies Act 2006. Sales of Goods Act 1979 Notes: The discussions of cases are required. We need to process for the law suit against the other company that is Halton because they have n right to hold on the payment or claim for the set off of the amount. References: Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676 Atiyah, Patrick Selim, John Norman Adams, and Hector L. MacQueen.Sale of Goods. Pearson Education, 2005. Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd [2004] EWHC 1056 (Ch) Benjamin, Judah Philip.Benjamin's sale of goods. Thomson Professional Pub Canada, 1997 Bridge, Michael G.The international sale of goods: law and practice. Oxford University Press, 2007 Companies Act 2006. Gupta, Lakshmi Chandra.Corporate boards and nominee directors. Oxford University Press, USA, 1989. Koh, Pearlie. "The nominee director's tangled lot."Singapore Journal of Legal Studies(2007): 148-161. Lee, Pey Woan. "Serving Two Masters-the Dual Loyalties of the Nominee Director in Corporate Groups."Journal of Business Law2003 (2003): 449. Sales of Goods Act 1979 Treitel, Guenter Heinz.The law of contract. Sweet Maxwell, 2003 [1] Benjamin, Judah Philip.Benjamin's sale of goods. Thomson Professional Pub Canada, 1997 [2] Atiyah, Patrick Selim, John Norman Adams, and Hector L. MacQueen.Sale of Goods. Pearson Education, 2005. [3] Treitel, Guenter Heinz.The law of contract. Sweet Maxwell, 2003 [4] Bridge, Michael G.The international sale of goods: law and practice. Oxford University Press, 2007 [5] Gupta, Lakshmi Chandra.Corporate boards and nominee directors. Oxford University Press, USA, 1989. [6] Lee, Pey Woan. "Serving Two Masters-the Dual Loyalties of the Nominee Director in Corporate Groups."Journal of Business Law2003 (2003): 449. [7] Koh, Pearlie. "The nominee director's tangled lot."Singapore Journal of Legal Studies(2007): 148-161.