60.1K

Verified Solution

Link Copied!

Question 1 Not yet answered Find Salomon v Salomon And Company, Limited (1897] AC 22. Read the facts. How many shares had been issued in Salomon and Company, Limited? Marked out of 1.0 Flag question Select one: 40,000 O b. 20,000 . Twenty thousand Od 20,007 Question 2 Not yet answered In Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1997] AC 22, how many judges thought Mr Broderip should not be paid on the debenture he had purchased from Mr Salomon and accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be reversed? Marked out of 1.0 P Flag question Select one: O a. None of them Ob One of them . Two of them O d. Three of them O. Four of them Of. Five of them Og Six of them Oh Seven of them Question 3 What are the first words of Lord Morris in Salomon v Salomon (1897] AC 22? Not yet answered Marked out of 1.0 Clue: Use the PDF version and look at the margin notes. Flag question Select one: O a My Lords, I quite concur in the judgment which has been announced, and in the reasons which have been so fully given for it. Ob. My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the appellant, Aron Salomon, has been dealt with somewhat hardly in this case. O c. It is not contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Companies Act 1862 for a trader, in order to limit his liability and obtain the preference of a debenture- holder over other creditors, to sell his business to a limited company consisting only of himself and six members of his own family, the business being then solvent, all the terms of sale being known to and approved by the shareholders, and all the requirements of the Act being complied with Od My Lords, this appeal raises some questions of practical importance, depending upon the construction of the Companies Acts, which do not appear to have been settled by previous decisions. O e. My Lords, Aron Salomon was a fool. He is now a pauper and deserves to be one. Question 4 Not yet answered Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549; (1989) 7 ACLC 841 is a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The case is not available on AUSTLII. Marked out of 1.0 Select one: O True P Flag question O False Question 5 Not yet answered Which judge in Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549; (1989) 7 ACLC 841 thought Brigg's action should not proceed? Marked out of 1.0 Select one: p Flag question Oa. Hope JA O b. Rodgers A-JA OC. Meagher JA O d. Flannery DCJ O e Lord MacNaghten Question 6 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.0 Find Briggs v James Hardie & Co Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549 as reported in the New South Wales Law Reports. On what page of the New South Wales Law Reports does the judgment of Hope JA commence? p Flag question Select one: O a. 549 O b. 552 O c. 555 Od 557 O e 581 Who were the judges in re Wakim, ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511? Question 7 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.0 Select one: O a. Hope, Rogers, Meagher p Flag question O b. Halsbury, Watson, Herschell, MacNaghten, Morris, Davey Oc. Gleeson, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan O d. Abbott, Hockey, Morrison Oe. Harris, Hargovan, Adams Question 8 Not yet answered How many judges in re Wakim, ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 thought the conferral of jurisdiction on Federal Courts by State Parliaments was invalid? Marked out of 1.0 Select one: O a. All of them p Flag question O b. All except one judge OC. All except two judges Od. All except three judges Oe. All except four judges Question 9 Not yet answered When was the decision in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1;231 CLR 160; 23 ALR 232; 81 ALUR 525 handed down? Marked out of 1.0 p Flag question Select one: O a. 1 January 2007 Ob. 15 January 2007 O c. 31 January 2007 od 1 February 2007 O e 15 February 2007 Question 10 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.0 The relevance of which case did the Court consider in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1,231 CLR 160; 23 ALR 232; 81 ALUR 525? p Flag question Select one: O a. Gambotto v WCP Ltd O b. Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd O c. re Wakim, ex parte McNally Houdlsworth v City of Glasgow Bank O e Smith, Stone and Knight v Birmingham Corporation

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

See Answer