common Agency Law(英文case求解!分析案例不要翻译） 高分!1. 最好有 key issue2. THE RELEVANT LAWMichael entered into a contract to build a dry dock for shipping at Watsons Bay. Michael trades under the registered business name of “Po

common Agency Law(英文case求解!分析案例不要翻译） 高分!1. 最好有 key issue2. THE RELEVANT LAWMichael entered into a contract to build a dry dock for shipping at Watsons Bay. Michael trades under the registered business name of “Po
common Agency Law(英文case求解!分析案例不要翻译） 高分!
1. 最好有 key issue
2. THE RELEVANT LAW
Michael entered into a contract to build a dry dock for shipping at Watsons Bay. Michael trades under the registered business name of “Poseidon Constructions”, and employs George as his business manager under these arrangements,.
Michael managed the construction and George ordered building materials and generally looked after the accounts.
One day Michael visited George at home and found it to be sited in Vaucluse and clearly worth more than he ought to be able afford on his salary. On inquiry Michael found that George had purchased the house in the name of the business.
Michael was not impressed, and told George to give the house back. Unfortunately, the company that sold the house would not do so, and said that as the house had been purchased by the authorized representative of Poseidon Constructions, and in the name of that business, Poseidon Constructions had to pay.
They threatened to sue Poseidon Constructions for the outstanding $200,000.
Michael wants to know whether he can make George pay for the house, and what options he has.
这个问题我发了2遍，悬赏加起来245，有高手给力点的不，我全给啊分,还有就是题目错了，是common law 里面关于 agency 部分的

common Agency Law(英文case求解!分析案例不要翻译） 高分!1. 最好有 key issue2. THE RELEVANT LAWMichael entered into a contract to build a dry dock for shipping at Watsons Bay. Michael trades under the registered business name of “Po
I am not a professional lawer,but work in a JV,so I can only analyse it under my common understanding,and somehow with Chinese law.
The key issue of this case is authority of agency.
Normally,in the company,only the legal representative (or upper level),in this case,Micheal,who sign the contract can become effective.As a manager,George does't have the authority to sign the house purchasing contract,the house company should know it too.So,this contract is noneffective.House should take the house back and pay money back.And,of course,there must be something else to George later.
But,there is one question here,it is that if Micheal has issue the authority letter to say that George is the authorized representative of him,or the company.
If answer is yes,then the company has to pay penalty to house company,and ask George to undertake this fee; or ask George to pay all for the house,and pay money back to company (behind your words,he used the company money to buy this house).Because it means the contract is effective,only George use the company for himself.
As a employee,even if the managing director,never has the right to do anything for himeslf with company money without permission.
Hope it is helpful to you.

本人不是法律专业，只学过民法和一些商业法，只是觉得这个案例很有趣。
I don't think Poseidon Constructions (P.C.) is responsible for the house payment because George used the P.C.'s money to purchse a house for his personal use inst...

全部展开

本人不是法律专业，只学过民法和一些商业法，只是觉得这个案例很有趣。
I don't think Poseidon Constructions (P.C.) is responsible for the house payment because George used the P.C.'s money to purchse a house for his personal use instead of for the P.C.'s business use, without the acknowledgement of Michael. Actually, George has committed a crime--embezzlement. Therefore, George should be responsible for the hourse payment. Michael can choose to sue George's embezzlement and probably doesn't need to pay anything on the house if he win.
The other option Michael has is to help George if Michael want to be a nice person. Michael can take over the house and put it in trade or business of P.C., and he need to pay for the house.
1. The key issue is whether the house was purchased for P.C.'s business use or not, and whether Michael knows about the deal between George and the third party (house selling company).
2. The relevant law: you can think about the embezzlement, and George owed fiduciary duty to P.C. as a manager.

收起