Case Studies of Business Law and Business Structures

This is a case of the invitation to treat and the contractual obligations to be fulfilled while taking consideration in action.

In the scenarios A the man gorkha who caught the fish and getting an idea that he is doing it for the 75000 dollars. The invitation to treat by the company was clear and he was doing it for the actual amount. This is a binding agreement where the company posted for an invitation for a treat and the gorkha accepted and claimed the prize money. There could be two possibilities one where the company pays gorkha for the claim since the advertisement was made of 75000 dollars and there was no further counter-argument from the company in form of the advertisement and hence this closely resembles the Cahill vs carbolic smoke ball company[footnoteRef:1]., where the company claimed to offer 100 pounds to anyone who would catch influenza after using their prescribed medicine, Cahill contracted influenza and sued the company for their claim. The court also ruled since the advertisement was an invitation to treat the company entered contact with the general public and is now liable to pay for the damages which they eventually did. Associating it with the current scenario the advertisement was placed, contact was formed, an invitation to treat was given and there was no alteration made by the advertiser in form of the advertisement, it was word of mouth and it ant be taken into consideration while performing the tasks. [1: Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co", Lawteacher.Net (Webpage, 2020).]

And in the second situation where there is a possibility that the company may not be liable could be that, if they manage to claim and prove that there was no consideration involved, same that happened in the case of price vs Easton[footnoteRef:2]. where Easton asked price to do some work for him and price did so for an amount of 19 pounds. Later Easton refused to pay to claim that there was no consideration involved, and the court ruled in favor that since there was no consideration involved it was in favor of Easton. Since there was no verbal communication between the company and the gorkha and word of the amount falling to 7500 were communicated in the market/ bank this will be a past consideration, and past consideration is no consideration. Secondly, one other aspect is the burden of proof, the gorkha will have to face the burden of proof if the company claims that they have spread the word and it is proven that gorkha was available for the hearing and had somehow manage dot hear the claim they don’t stand liable for the claim as in the cargo damages cases under the Hague’s law. Where the burden of proof is based on the defendant and has to prove where and how he could claim his demands. If the first case law is followed the company will be liable for damages however if the latter case laws are taken into account they will not have to pay for the damages amount and can secure their claims and placethe burden of proof on the gorkha. [2: Price V Easton - 1883 - Case Summary", Lawteacher.Net (Webpage, 2020).]

Since the company has advertised and they are under a contractual obligation of paying the said amount of money the case of Cahill vs the smoke ball company is again effective here and it makes the company liable for offering the amount of money which is being advertised and they stand no such legal chance against the claimant. Since the invitation of the treat was imparted by the company and further Hank accepted the offer and was on a mission of specifically catching the fish for the sole claim of the seventy-five thousand dollars and makes him a clean man for claiming the amount that as promised in the advertisement. This may also be noted that unlike the above case where the rumors and word of mouth may have been imparted and could be heard by gorkha does not apply here, he was away and he can not hear such rumors so the burden of proof is on the company in the case to prove that the claimant knew about this situation and was informed in due course of time, but neither of these things happened in these cases. The company has a weak case in the current scenarios. However, there could be a possibility that the company claims that as they had spread the word of mouth. Taking the example of hardly vs baxandale[footnoteRef:3]. where the claimant headly sued baxandale over providing late remedies for his broken shaft which cost him a lot of profit loss. The court ruled since baxandale was noa ware of the importance and heady never told him that it was urgently required so he does not have the legal obligation to full fill the damages bore by headly. The same is the case in this situation where hank is simply unaware of the fact that the company has changed the terms and is doing the fishing on its own. this may be noted that hank was unaware however the company had made the intentions clear and had communicated to the general public which can be used now for claiming that their side is safe and they had made certain and timely amendments in the due course of time tostay at the safe end. However, the only thing which can be a hurdle is that if hank claims the damages of not conveying the message to him, which will not make any sense as advertisements are made for the general public and they are not for any specified individuals, hanks claims cannot be entertained in such scenarios. If the first case law, Cahill vs smoke Ball Company is taken to account, the company could stand liable to give the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars. And if the latter case law of Headley vs baxandale is taken it will make them a little safe and the damages may not be paid in such case. [3: Hadley V Baxendale - 1854", Lawteacher.Net (Webpage, 2020)]

Since thenthe business model consists of it world that contains several artists and the British as well. So this would be calling for various models of businesses. That would be implemented in such a name. For instance, currently, there are singers and the performers involved. Secondly, the radio that has been taken into confidence for the promotion of the events is the second stakeholder. And finally, the organizer who is working to word. The programs will be the third stakeholder. Is there a currently 3 stakeholders in haste calling meetings with other potential financials as well.

So I think that there could be a model of participation that would be implemented to have a safe and mood secure business model environment.

According to the website of the Australian business govt.the type of businesses that could be operating in Australia. Number one is the sole ownership that includes the simple structure that you are having full control of one stakeholder. It is the partnership model with more than two people are involved and they distribute the losses. The third model is the limited liability company will more complex issues arising. You have to be a limited liability because the shares and involved to the people and your company is not just your entity, but the public locals also have a share of it fourth one is the trust model where the trustee is responsible for the business operations and all stakeholders are directed toward trustee for the decisions making.

As mentioned earlier since this project and this performance is made up of several stakeholders. So I think that the partnership model in which all stakeholders equally share the revenue and the losses would be the best one for implementation and it would help avoid any hindrance from of any kind since they would be no one-man show and there will be no limited liabilities and if the show is successful they will be able to share the revenues and if the show is not successful they would be having an equal share in the revenues and the losses as well.

Another advantage of the partnership base model would be that all stakeholders would be working together and they would be working towards the development of the program. Where the artists would be to finances will be the organizers and since they are having the radio as a stakeholder as well. If the stakeholders are having an equal share and they are an equal partner of the event. They would be giving their best to make the revenue maximum to have a fair share of this. And I am pretty sure that this business model of partnership basis would be helpful and for individuals and The Business of the event itself.

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of business touches talking about the sole ownership the danger is that if the even does not go well. All the losses would be bored by only one individual and he would be liable to pay all the damages and be at the losses in case the even fails. Such models are not very helpful in the presenceof a number of stakeholders and the world through one-man show would not be working here and there's my lead to disagreement and losses in case of revenues. Jim Woodruff,[footnoteRef:4] [4: mikes, Anette, "Managing Risks: A New Framework", Harvard Business Review (Webpage, 2020).]

The second one is the limited liability company and this form the company is based on public partnership, which could not be implemented in this case. However, if this is implemented the Danger is that the shareholders might not be on the same board and they might have a conflict of interest with each other over the buying of years and which is has since this model could lead to chaos within the organization and the future even send the current could be harshly affected by the disagreements.

The third one is the partnership model, in the Partnership model the only disadvantage is that if some of the stakeholdersare not willing to invest further or he's not willing to take the share. It would be affecting the event of the business in a harmful way. There is again a disagreement over the selection and the choices that are made to perform and execute the business properly more stakeholders and more Partners means that there could be more disagreement.

The fourth one is the trusting model across the model could not be used since it involves only a trustee with the decision taken by the trustee. Since this is an event word number of stakeholders would be involved and we will have a band and group and they would be moving location to location for the performances and events. So it was a new model that could not be helpful because instant decisions and strategic decisions could not be taken by any trustee on behalf of the organizations and the companies.

The financer can limit the risk by making sure that all locations he plans to take the performances are well sorted out and have a proper advertisement made so that the tickets and other arrangements are made this will help the organizer to have a security event.[endnoteRef:1]The performer can use their brand name and values to advertise the event to gain more attention and making the event a successful one. [1: References mikes, Anette, "Managing Risks: A New Framework", Harvard Business Review (Webpage, 2020) <https://hbr.org/2012/06/managing-risks-a-new-framework> Price V Easton - 1883 - Case Summary", Lawteacher.Net (Webpage, 2020) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/price-v-easton.php>. Business Structures | Business.Gov.Au", Business.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2020) https://www.business.gov.au/planning/business-structures-and-types/business-structures mikes, Anette, "Managing Risks: A New Framework", Harvard Business Review (Webpage, 2020) <https://hbr.org/2012/06/managing-risks-a-new-framework> ]

The financer can limit their risk by having a strategic approach and funding a proper and well-calculated risk for the locations based on research and other variables this can help them to get an idea about the next in line events are previous responses of the public will make them determine and reconsider future choices.

The radio does not have any such risks associated and they can use their communications to deliver the advertisements over and over again and are currently immune to any possible damages.

1