Mr. Manfredi Purchased HappyHippie - Business Law - Case Study Example

Business Laws Name Professor University Course Date Business Laws There are various issues that are evident in the case, with some which are unethical and inconsiderate to business organizations, and this is observed from the irregularities presented in the scenario presented below. In conducting businesses, there are terms and conditions that the parties involved need to follow and adhere to (Law $ Elizabeth, 2012). These regulations are considered to be the business laws that the contractors need to follow to ensure that the transaction that they hold are legal and satisfies the needs of every party involved. For instance in the case of a contract, the contracting parties need to agree on terms and conditions of the contract, and once one party fails to meet the agreement, the other party has the mandate to sue the individual or organization in the court of law (Trindade, Peter $ Mark, 2007). Considering the scenario presented in the case where Mr. Manfredi purchased HappyHippie, from its director Elvis Eggplan, there are several illegal practices observed in the case, which are with inclusion of larceny, cheating and theft. As a legal advisor to Mr. Manfredi, there are major issues that he needs to understand before suing Elvis Eggplant for selling him the restaurant without the genuine legal documents, and without following the legal procedures of selling a registered firm. Initially, there is negligent misinterpretation of the scenario which contributed to poor contractual relationship between the transacting parties (Law $ Elizabeth, 2012). By selling the restaurant, Elvis aimed at making profits and/or maintaining the initial and operational capital of the firm without minding the outcomes of the risks. On the other hand Manfredi took the risk of purchasing the restaurant without considering the repercussions associated with the process and without getting legal advice. Additionally, he did not consider the aspect of the originality of the documents that were issues to him during the sale of the restaurant nor reflect on the challenges that may arise in situations where those documents are found to be counterfeit by the legal systems. The business regulations stipulated in the Australian legislature clearly outlines the business legal ethics and code of conduct. According to the argument based on the negligent misstatement in the Australian legislature, in any business transaction, the shareholders must be accountable by providing accurate financial information (Trindade, Peter $ Mark, 2007). This scenario discusses the fraud that was imposed in business transaction between Mr. Manfredi and director of HappyHippie, Elvis Eggplant. The script explores on the fact finding based on the business laws. Mr. Manfredi buys a vegetarian cafe with a conviction that it will earn him a lot of profit within short duration of time. According to the evidence provided in the Mutual life and Citizens’ Assurance Cooperative Limited, a person who provides the evidence, was knowledgeable with special skills (Evatt, 1971). This was further backed up by the Parramatta City Council which argued that any evidence was not to be provided by any qualified advisor (Lambiris, 2008). In this script, Mr. Frendi has evidence from the old receipts which he can use to sue a case in the court against misstatement and exaggerations by the HappyHippie manager. Though Mr. Manfredi had receits he collected as the evidence, it can be argued that before he went on to give the final money, he had been convinced without any doubt that the café was worth for the amount. It can also be argued that at the transition day, Elvis Eggplant had added to Mr. Manfredi both the old and current receipts for the purpose of comparison since there were no presence of any guarantor (Trindade, Peter $ Mark, 2007). Elvis Eggplant was not the owner of the HappyHippie restraunt, he was CEO, and therefore, it could be argued that Mr. Manfredi did all the transaction with the owner of the café with no any knowledge of the CEO. The possible argument could also be based on the fact that the old receipt tapes were from another café bearing the same name and operating under the same manager. It could also be argued that Lukas, the friend af Manfredi who operated similar café could be the privy to information given to Manfredi to guarantee him of the profit o he would get from business that turned to be a lie. The second position of the evidence could be that there was no any serious business context when making the transactions due to lack of a guarantor. It could be expected that when making business transactions like purchasing business premises, there must be guarantors who could serve as a source of evidence at a serious circumstances like that facing Mr. Manfredi (Evatt, 1968). It is stated that Mr. Manfredi met old receipts and cash register cash but there is no further evidence provided (Law $ Elizabeth, 2012). Therefore, it could be that the time Mr. Manfredi was purchasing the HappyHappie café, the prospect of the business was as it is stated that Max and Charlie are friends, but no further information is provided as indicated in the receipts given to him during the transaction. Again, when getting into a serious financial commitment, one is expected to be very keen (Chaudhry, 1989). Therefore, it could be argued that Mr. Manfredi initially had the full idea when getting into a commitment that demanded him that substantial amount of money. However, it is not known whether Mr. Manfredi had any idea concerning the café management. Thus he had no relevant personal idea concerning the operation of the café. In this argument it could be considered that Elvis Eggplant took this advantage to affiliate the figures in the receipts he added to Manfredi. It could also be argued that since Mr.Manfredi in many occasion was taking his suffer in the same café, so he had a prior knowledge on the prospect of the business and the amount of the dish and beverages (Gibson $ Douglas, 2012). Though it is not mentioned, Mr. Manfredi was very keen to buy business since from all these time he had been paying a visit to that café and received the same receipts after paying for the service offered in the café. However, it is not stated whether Manfredi had provided the information of purchasing the café earlier. Therefore it could be argued that the receipts were as stated, since Elvis had no idea of the Manfred’s’ idea to purchase the cafe so that he could forge all the receipts. However, it is quite reasonable to say that Mr. Manfredi could win the case because he had the relevant information from the receipts, cash register tapes and government tax document which could serve as both the external and internal evidence (Chaudhry, 1989). So the court would rely on the information provided in the documents. According to the case of L. Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council, the information provided by Mr. Manfredi was extensively available from other sources and was able to be externally verified if only the court could consider the information as well interpreted. On the other hand, if this case could be based on the fact that when the transaction was made, Elvis considered the information as per the current and the future profitability when negotiating for the sale, without making himself liable for the misinterpretation, would win the case. The case could be argued that the owner of the HappyHappie café was not liable for the inflation of extra charge since the whole matter involved the CEO. In the judgment according to Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968), it is found that responsibility of care extends to recommend on a condition that the advice is about the future (David, 2007). Therefore, in contrast to Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) Elvis made no attempt to limit his liability when making the transaction. In this case it is reasonable to argue that Mr. Manfredi failed at the first place when he neglected to have a guarantor. In addition, there is no any document that holds a signature of Elvis Eggplant to fully conclude that the inflation was contributed by him (Walmsley, Alister $ Ben, 2007). Again there was no any law in HappyHappie cooperation Limited that prohibited any fraud transaction in the business since they were aimed at making profit. Therefore the legal system may found Elvis Eggplant not liable of the criminal offence that Mr. Manfredi may sue. References David, M., (2007). Themes in the law of torts; Australian Law Journal. Gibson, A., $ Douglas F., (2012). Business Law; Newyork: Pearson. Lambiris, M., (2008). First Principles of Business Law Source Materials; CCH Australia. Law, J., $ Elizabeth M., (2012). A Dictionary of Law; Oxford University Press. Trindade, F., Peter C., $ Mark L., (2007). The Law of Torts in Australia; Oxford University Press. Walmsley, S., Alister, A $ Ben Z., (2007). Professional Liability in Australia; Lawbook Co, Read More