Corporate Law Case Study

Status
Not open for further replies.

erik8tlw

New Member
Tamu Baru Sdn Bhd is a private limited company whose sole object is the manufacture of boat. Recently, the board of directors decided to expand its business to venture into poultry farming. Pursuant to this decision Tamu Baru Sdn Bhd purchased and obtained delivery of 20,000 chickens from Ayam Sdn Bhd at a cost of RM1.25 million. They are contemplating purchasing another 20,000 chickens in three months' time. Carol, a member of Tamu Baru Sdn Bhd, is completely opposed to the idea of poultry farming as it is outside the scope of the objects of the company. Advised Carol on the following:


(a) whether the contract of Tamu Baru Bhd to purchase chickens from Ayam Sdn Bhd can be challenged on the ground that it is outside the objects clause of the company and she could have the transaction set aside;

(b) whether she could successfully obtain an injunction against any party to prevent the contemplated purchase of another 20,000 chickens in three months' time; and

(c) whether she could take legal action against any person to make that person compensate the company for any loss resulting from the purchase of the chicken.
 
Asia is not a country so the laws of whatever country you are in are important. Generally speaking a private company has limited stockholders. The best idea would be to call a shareholder's meeting in accordance with the bylaws and let the shareholders decide if this new direction for the company is legitimate.
 
(a) No, chickens are wonderful animals and any corporate bylaw purporting to bar a company from investing in their farming is contrary to natural law and therefore void.

(b) Yes. Courts are increasingly populated by activist judges bent on advancing the cause of animal rights activists and would undoubtedly be sympathetic to anyone seeking to put an stop to mass chicken enslavement.

(c) Maybe. If the chickens were overpriced, she should sue the supplier for not being fair. If it just so happened that chickens turned out not to be as profitable as they thought, she could possibly sue the chickens for breach of fiduciary duty (5 marks for discussing legal standing) but even if successful would likely have difficulty collecting (30 marks for discussing chicken finances).
 
I have to spread the rep around before I can give it to dee dub again, hence the thanks. LOL
 
I missed it the first time, we don't do homework. I did mine, you do yours.
 
(a) No, chickens are wonderful animals and any corporate bylaw purporting to bar a company from investing in their farming is contrary to natural law and therefore void.

(b) Yes. Courts are increasingly populated by activist judges bent on advancing the cause of animal rights activists and would undoubtedly be sympathetic to anyone seeking to put an stop to mass chicken enslavement.

(c) Maybe. If the chickens were overpriced, she should sue the supplier for not being fair. If it just so happened that chickens turned out not to be as profitable as they thought, she could possibly sue the chickens for breach of fiduciary duty (5 marks for discussing legal standing) but even if successful would likely have difficulty collecting (30 marks for discussing chicken finances).

Can you give me which acts and cases are used for applying (a), (b) and (c) statements? By the way, I don't understand statement (a). Can you explain more detail on it?
 
Last edited:
erik8tlw said:
Can you give me which acts and cases are used for applying (a), (b) and (c) statements? By the way, I don't understand statement (a). Can you explain more detail on it?

That's easy.

A guzzinto B but B can't guzzinto C.

A simply can filchifly flarn until flarn flies. Fee, fie, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a Cornish hen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can you give me which acts and cases are used for applying (a), (b) and (c) statements?
Come on, I can't do everything for you.
By the way, I don't understand statement (a). Can you explain more detail on it?
Natural law is the participation by humans in eternal law; it is the law of nature and all things, including chickens, corporations, and Asians are bound by it. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the great natural lawyers, in fact modified Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics into his own "Cacciatorean Ethics". But I digress. Advise your professor that the corporate bylaw restricting investment in poultry is no good because it is an abomination against nature. To the extent your jurisdiction incorporates British common law, you may find the Court of Chancery's decision Jarndyce v. Jarndyce to be of assistance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top