Law Revision

She c are for her own self please and has not bring a new product opportunity to FAA Case Re Come 191 1 Fact A father had been assisted in his business by his abet son. After the fathers death, the mother transferred the business assets to that second son. After her death, the elder son sought the transfer Of those assets back into her estate, aspect that in the absence of her having taken independent advice, the younger sons position brought an conditional relation of undue influence.Directors fiducial duties are owed only to the alliance, not to the some(prenominal)(prenominal) plow deal holders. Case Percival v Wright 1902 Facts Percival wished to sell his shares in the participation and wrote to the company depository asking if he knew f anyone willing to buy. After negotiations, the chairman of the get on of film directors arranged the grease ones palms of 253 shares, 85 for himself and 84 for each of his fellow directors at a price based on Percival valuation of the shares. The transfers were approved by the progress and the deeds completed.Soon afterwards, Percival discovered that prior to and during the negotiations for the trade of his shares, another soulfulness was negotiating with the board for the purchase of the whole company and was offering various prices for shares, solely of which exceeded the price paid to Percival. Percival thusly brought n action against the directors asking for the sale of his shares to be set aside for non-disclosure. Held The directors are not trustee for the individual shareholders and may purchase their shares with come out of the closet disclosing that they are negotiating for the sale of the entire company.kookie has not communicate to the board of FAA when she set up a company called Cure breeding Ltd (CLC) and become majority shareholder. Case The board of trustees of the Saba Foundation &038 Ors v Dates seeded player chick bin Seed Mohamed &038 nor 1 999 A fiduciary is someone who has sta rt to act for or on behalf of another in a item tater in circumstances which give rise to a kindred of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is authorise to the single minded loyalty of his fiduciary This core liability has several facts.A fiduciary must act in pricey faith he must not make for his own reach or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent Of his principal. This is not think to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations.. They are the defining characteristics of the fiduciary E is not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is fiduciary it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary. The gravestone fide carry obligations of the directors are To act Boniface in the interest of the company Directors are required to act Boniface for the benefit of the company as a whole.The Act withal imposes similar duty on dir ectors SSL 32 (1) Case Re Lee Barrens Ltd 1932 Facts A dispute arose over the purchase by the company of pension policies for the benefit of employees and their spouses. It was claimed that the divideicular policy issued was a misuse of the directors power. Held The judge set out a three part test for determining whether the directors were using their powers properly (1) Was the transaction entered into in good faith? (2) Was the transaction reasonably incidental to the carrying on of the companys business? (3) Was the transaction done for the benefit of the company and to promote its prosperity? 1) No (2) NO (3) Yes TO work their power under the companys constitution for proper purpose Because directors are fiduciaries they can only exercise powers given to them for the purpose for which those powers were given and for no other purpose or which those powers were given and for no other purpose, and the exercise of a power for an improper purpose can be challenged correct if the d irectors good faith is not in question To avoid contradict of interest and not to mesh from their position In the situation, Fruity has proposed FAA enters into a carry with CLC to buy supplies of the organic fruit drink product for resale.The board agrees and as part of the melt off Fruity negotiates with the board that she will be paid RUMOR,000 commission because she drew the boards aid to this new product opportunity. The board of FAA did not know that Fruity is the majority shareholder of CLC. There is a conflict of interest between the two position Managing Director of gall Always dark Bad and as the majority shareholder of CLC. Fruity also has set up the price for commission of RUMOR,OOH to draw attention towards the new product opportunity.Case Aberdeen Railway co v Blaine Brose 1843-60 Facts The railway company agreed to buy chairs from a partnership, Blaine Brose. Blaine, a member of the partnership was also a director of the company. When the partners tried to enfor ce the contract the company successfully claimed that the contract was avoidable owing to the directors conflict of interest. Held Lord Charwoman verbalize His duty to the company imposed on him the obligation of obtaining these iron chairs at the lowest possible price.His personal interest would let him in an just opposite direction would induce him to fix the price as high school as possible. This is the very evil against which the rule is directed. A director has a duty not to make a personal profit out of his connection with the company. This rule applies even if no loss is suffered by the company. However, if he does he must count for the profit to the company. Fruity has make a personal profit in connection with FAA and CLC. The FAA may suffer no loss due to FAA makes large profits selling the organic immature product.Case Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley 1 972 Facts The managing director of IDS attempted to secure a contract on Ids behalf with the Eastern Gas Board. KGB indicated to him that they were not prepared to script with IDS but might be prepared to contract with the director (Cooley) personally. Cooley then represented to IDS that he was ill and was allowed to terminate his contract t scam notice. He then negotiated with KGB and obtained the consultancy for himself. Held He must account to IDS for the profit he obtained for the contracts.He was in breach of duty and it was immaterial that IDS could not have obtained the contract itself. Case Cook v Deeds 1 91 6 Facts Three directors of the Toronto bodily structure Co Ltd were supposed to be negotiating a construction contract on behalf of the company. Instead they formed another company and took the Contract for themselves. They were holders of 75% of the share capital of Toronto Construction, and used this charity to pass a resolution at general meet that the company had no interest in the contract.Held A director can normally keep a personal profit the company consent s, but this consent is invalid if the director concerned controls the balloting at general meeting. This was fraud on the minority. Section 131 (1) requires a director who is directly or indirectly interested in a contract with his company to declare promptly the nature of that interest at meeting of directors. Section 132(1) imposes a broad duty on directors at all the times to act honestly and exercise reasonable diligence in the exercise of heir power and the discharge of the duties of their office.This is based on a question of fact case Yen Hinge enterprise Sad Bad v Dates Dry Eng pooh Aka 1 988 Regarding the extend of the thinking of honesty, the case of Multi drive Singapore pet Ltd ( In Receivership ) v Interact Ltd &038 Ors 1994 explains that this does not mean that the directors had acted fraudulently, it means that he must act bona fide in the interests of the company and that in exercising his creation, the director should act only to promote and advance the interest of the company. Misuse of confidential information