Foundations of Business Law for Majority Act- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theFoundations of Business Law for Majority Act. Answer: Contract Law: Capacity [Minors] A minor is defined in the terms of contract where the person who has not completed the age of 18 years and if that contract has applicable to the conditions then agreement will be void. According to the capacity of contract, it is necessary to determine the validity of the contract, which should complete the elements with the relevant capacity for entering into the contract. Without the limited capacity, it is required to complete the contractual transactions. According to the Age of Majority Act 1971, a person must complete the age of 18 years for entering into the contract. The Minors are required to have protection for being the immaturity. Therefore, for developing a contract the basic rules should applied for entering into the contract. According to the section 11 of the Contract Act 1950 it is required to fulfill all the terms of capacity which are the person should complete the age of minority, must be sound mind and should disqualified under the terms of contract. Therefore, the complete of the age of 18 years is required for established a legal contract. The famous cases where the capacity of contract has been found and due to entering in the contract, it became voidable which are Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat (1934); Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh Ors (1971) ; Leha Binte Jusoh v Awang Johari bin Hashim (1978). Contract Law: Invitation to treat According to the Contract Act 1950 the section 2 has defined that if one person has directly significant for the willingness for abstain with any act, which must complete the offer by accepting the proposal. When a legally binding contract has introduced then it should have an offer and an acceptance. Under some contractual representation which is known as invitation to treat. It defines the request of information or the statements of intention. In the case of White v Bluett the offer and acceptance has stated in the invitation to treat with a view of the contract. Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sheriff, High Court of Malaya, Seremban Ors [1974] in is one of the famous case of Malaysia where an advertisement has been provided which shows of offers but it not make self the offer and the offer has been accepted which falls under some conditions for the person who accept the offers. Therefore it has creates an invitation to offer. The invitation to offer is define bilateral contract where the terms should be applicable according to the offer and the contract only formed when the other party accept all the terms and conditions. the invitation to offer is define a valid contract for the times when it should applicable according to the offer and the contract only formed when the other party except on the terms and conditions which created by the awfully the invitation to treat has defined. in another case Partridge v Crittenden [1968] and Grainger Son v Gough [1896]. According to the Malaysian Contract Act 1950 in section 2A defined the proposal where a co ntract should formed when there is an acceptance and the section 2B find the proposal was a way to formed when there is a acceptance and the section 2b applied the promise. According to the section, 2a every promise and the promises should be consist of the consideration and form an agreement and it should be enforceable by law for a legal contract. Contract Law: Partnership The partnership has described in the law of contract according to the Partnership Act 1961 partnership, which is one of the common way of business operation. In every country there are more than two person can enter into a legal agreement of partnership and can share the same rights. Most of the business communication has depends on the partnership that it will be available in a business market area. It should have a name according to the Trademark law for the identification and legal aspects of business after choosing the business name. The authorities should register under the act. The registration should include business name along with the registration under the territory of state or another state in agency under the State Law. The fees and other causes also may vary under the partnership agreement. the negotiation terms should be included for negotiation in the business purpose all both of the partners who will be liable for every duties and liabilities. They should open a bank account and must be operate with all the partners. Partners have rights to carry the terms of agreement in absence of other partners. They will share the equal partnership property, rights, and duties under the partnership agreement. The business capital, profits, and loss should equally distributed among the partners. Every partner mast identifies their payments and the personal liability incurred by them. If any loss has occurred in the partnership business then both of the partners will contribute for the loss amount equally under the Partnership Act 1961. There are several cases has been found related to the terms of the partnership which are Jones vs. Padavatton [1969], Parker vs. Clarke, Hitchin vs. Hitchin (Aus), Keith Spicer vs. Mansell (Aus) and Simpkins vs. Pays [1955]. Contract Law: Intention to create relation Under the terms of intention to create legal relation or intention to be legally bound is one of the important terms to formation and agreement. According to the contract act, 1950 intention to create legal relationship has been defined one of the Essential elements where both the parties has legal intention or legal sequences to entering into and contract and formation of a legally binding agreement. When contract has been formed it should Binding in a legal contract to make the contract completely. The cases are where it is applicable the intension to create legal relations are Balfour vs. Balfour [1919] and Merritt vs. Merritt [1970]. Reference Balfour vs. Balfour [1919] Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sheriff, High Court of Malaya, Seremban Ors [1974] Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh Ors (1971) Hitchin vs. Hitchin (Aus) Jones vs. Padavatton [1969] Keith Spicer vs. Mansell (Aus) Leha Binte Jusoh v Awang Johari bin Hashim (1978). Merritt vs. Merritt [1970] Parker vs. Clarke Partridge v Crittenden [1968] and Grainger Son v Gough [1896] Simpkins vs. Pays [1955] Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat (1934)