Contract with Robert-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.Can Peter enforce his Contract with Robert? 2.Each will bill and be exclusively entitled to the fees received in return for their own work. Is this a Partnership? Answers: 1.As per the Alberta Regulation 196/1999, Fair Trading Act- Public Auctions Regulations, it is the duty of the auctioneer to read out the conditions of sale or make sure that the conditions of the sale are read by those present at the sale. The auctioneer must do this before the commencement of the sale or at the beginning of the adjourned sale. However, the auctioneer need not ensure that the condition are read by those present at the auction if they are regular bidders in the auction sales business (Casey, 2012). Also, the auction sale business have to provide the bidders the necessary conditions of the auctions in the bid cards if they are registered bidders and may not be attending the auction on the given day. Moreover, the auctioneers cannot make statements which are incorrect in any manner. And for the bidders, it is their duty to read and understand the conditions of sale before the beginning of the Auction (Riefa, 2015). They should also inspect the commodities themselves be fore placing the bid so that they can be aware of every detail of the commodity in auction. In the given case, Peter owned a vacant land that he wanted to sell. Peter made a contract an Auctioneer named Howard. The rules and conditions of the sale were given in the catalogue made for the auction, wherein it was mentioned that the auctioneers do not have the authority to make the representation on behalf of the owner of the land. Robert was one of the bidders for the vacant land. Robert enquired Howard about the zonal arrangement of the vacant land and placed the bid relying upon the zonal arrangement as told by Howard. However, later on it turned out that the zonal arrangement as told by Howard was wrong and as a result Robert refused to pay for the property. When analyzing the case given above with the law governing the auctions, it can be said that both Howard and Robert have made mistakes. Howard made the mistake of making a representation for which he had no authority and also gave an inaccurate representation relying upon which Robert placed the bid. The mistake made by Robert was that he did not read the rules and conditions that was given in the catalogue for the auction because if he had read and understood the regulations, he could have known that Howard did not have the authority make the representation and he would have been careful in finding out the detail about the property. Moreover, it is the duty of the Bidder to inspect the commodity or the item held for auction. He did not do anything of this sort. Thus, it can be said that Peter, the owner of the land can enforce the contract on Robert for the vacant land because everything was mentioned in the catalogue meant for the sale of property at the auction. Despite, this he enquired the auctioneer who had no authority to make any representation. Moreover, Robert relied upon the representation made by the Auctioneer without even making any further enquiry about the property. Thus, it can be said that Peter can enforce his contract for sale of the property with Robert who cannot claim the fact that he relied upon an inaccurate representation made by the auctioneer. 2.As per the Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.5, the determination of partnership can be done by the real intention of the parties involved. This can be determined by the way they conduct themselves. For the determination of the existence of partnerships, the court of law sees the business relationship of the parties involved rather than relying on the form of the relationship (legalline.ca, 2017). The factors that court sees to check the substance of the business relationship are as follows- The official registration of the partnership. The contributions made by parties involved in terms of property, knowledge, money, skills and so on. A joint interest in the property of the business The right of control or management of the property or business. The expectations of the profits from the business or the intention to earn profits. The profit sharing rights of the parties involved in the business (bclaws.ca, 2017). In the given case, Susan and Joyce are accountants and are carrying on their respective business as sole proprietors. In order to reduce their expenses they decided to enter into an arrangement. For the reduction of costs, they rented premises together; it consisted of 3 offices and 1 reception area. Both of them signed the lease as the tenant. Then they hired a secretary who would be working for the both of them. It was decided that they would share the office expenses equally. However, apart from the expenses that are shared, any other expenses incurred by them would be borne by the person incurring them. Any decision relating with the management of the office and the secretary are taken by with the consent of both the parties. The revenue they generate in the form of fees for their service is kept by the person providing the service. Analyzing the factors for the determination of the substance of the partnership with that of the conditions of the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce, it can be said that the arrangement cannot be said to be a partnership because they do not have any formal registration of their partnership. Moreover, the contributions made by them are only in terms of expenses for the management of the office premises and the salary of the common secretary. Though they do have a joint interest in the property of the business it is not a conclusive evidence for the existence of a partnership between them. The most important factor considered in all the cases by all the court of law dealing with partnership determination is the intention of earning profit from the partnership and their profit sharing terms. However, both these factors are missing in the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce. Thus, it can be said that the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce cannot be said to be a Partnership because they do not have any official registration for their partnership deed. Moreover, their contributions merely reflect the sharing of expenses and do not reflect any fact which can be seen as spent for the purpose of the smooth sailing of the partnership. And the biggest factor missing from the arrangement is the intention to earn profit from the partnership and the profit sharing rights of the partnership business. Hence, it can be concluded that the arrangement between Susan and Joyce cannot be termed as a Partnership. Bibliography Casey, J. B. (2012).Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure. Juris Publishing, Inc.. Riefa, C. (2015).Consumer protection and online auction platforms: Towards a safer legal framework. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. www.bclaws.ca. (2017).Partnership Act.Bclaws.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96348_01 www.ianwyles.co.za. (2017).General Rules Of Auction | Ian Wyles Auctioneers amp Appraisers.Ianwyles.co.za. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.ianwyles.co.za/general-rules-auction/ www.legalline.ca. (2017).How to determine if a partnership exists - Legal Line.Legal Line. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/how-to-determine-if-a-partnership-exists/ www.ontario.ca. (2017).Cite a Website - Cite This For Me.Ontario.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05 www.qp.alberta.ca. (2017). Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1999_196.pdf www.thebalance.com. (2017).Eveything You Need to Know About Business Partnership in Canada.The Balance. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/partnership-in-canada-2948122