Assignment First

论文代写:弗雷达违约指控辩护的讨论分析

法律:当局正在审查《2001年公司法》的抗辩事由,但也有一些特定的规则,如对规则的判断、授权以及依赖于不为其个人利益所累的行为。

申请:作为BLPL的董事,弗雷达对她的行为没有采取应有的谨慎和勤勉的指控有一定的辩护。由于她没有阅读过公司进入园林行业的尽职调查报告,她实际上违背了自己的注意义务,在为公司代理时表现得十分勤奋。她投票支持园林绿化投资业务,因为报告中明确指出,这对BLPL不利,不适合也不盈利。


论文代写 :弗雷达违约指控辩护的讨论分析

她可以为自己辩护,她可以将自己的董事职位委托给另一个人,她认为这个人对自己的行为相当好,有责任,而且在合理行事时可能不会违反法律。由于在这个案件中,她本人没有阅读所需的报告,也没有委托任何人代表她,因此她没有这种辩护。因为违约已经发生了。在BLPL取决于她的地位,她是否执行董事或董事正常和有一些分配责任在宪法,她可以保护自己,可以依靠其他董事的决定向BLPL相当真诚,看到例如澳大利亚证券和投资委员会v希利717年[2011]FCA(雅各布森,2011)。

弗雷达认为违反了她的注意义务和勤奋可以通过调用业务判断规则保护自己,她可以孝顺和勤奋,服从section 180 2001年公司法(车车)如果业务判断不是高潮到任何个人利益。由于弗雷达的决定与她的个人利益没有任何关系,她可以为自己和她的违约指控辩护。


论文代写 :弗雷达违约指控辩护的讨论分析

Law: The Corporations Act 2001 defences are being reviewed by the authorities, but there are certain rules such as the judgement of rule, delegation, and relying on her acts that not accrue to her personal gain.
Application: Freda as a director of BLPL has certain defences against the charges of not taking due care and diligence in her actions. Since she has not read the due diligence report for the company entering into landscaping, she has in fact breached her duty of care and being diligent in acting for the company. She voted for the landscaping investment business when it was clearly concluded in the report that it is not good for BLPL and would not be suitable and profitable.


论文代写 :弗雷达违约指控辩护的讨论分析

She can have a defence where she can delegate her directorship to another person, which she thinks is reasonably good and responsible to act on her behalf and would not probably violate the law when acting reasonably. Since in this case she has herself not read the required report and had not delegated anyone on her behalf, she does not have this defence available. It is because the breach has already been committed. Depending on her position in BLPL, whether she is an executive director or a normal director and has some assigned responsibilities laid out in the constitution, she can defend herself that she could rely on the decision of other directors who are reasonably acting in good faith toward BLPL, see for example Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717(Jacobson, 2011).
Freda having assumed to have breached her duty of care and diligence can defend herself by calling the business judgement rule through which she can be taken to be dutiful and diligent and obeying section 180 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) if the business judgement taken is not to culminate into any personal advantage to her. Since Freda with her decision does not have any connection with personal advantage, she can defend herself and her allegations of breach.