I need help adding Sections from Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Partnership Act 1958 (Vic) to my answer.

A) Advise Elite Cars whether this is correct under the Corporations Act by examining whether: 1. Merian had the actual authority to rent the car or 2. Merian had the apparent authority to rent the car

When a person appears to have the authority to do something but does not, this is known as apparent authority. The Representative now has the burden of evidence that a person has apparent power, rather than Merian. The representation must prove that Merian lacked apparent authority in this situation. The decision on whether Winmore Pty Ltd is accountable for the payment must be made by Winmore Pty Ltd, which means she does not have to present proof that Merian lacked apparent power. The representative, on the other hand, can only sue Winmore Pty Ltd if he or she can establish that Merian acted without apparent authorization.

There are three different scenarios where there is real or perceived authority, in both actual and apparent authority: Chris gave Merian permission to complete the purchase. Harry gave Merian permission to complete the purchase. Chris or Harry gave Merian permission to conduct the transaction, with the express or implicit assent of the other directors. Because Harry (the director) and Chris (the person in charge of accounting) agreed that all transactions worth more than $2000 needed to be authorized by both directors, it seemed that Merian had genuine power. Because Harry provided his okay, Merian did not need to seek approval from the other director (the director who is not involved in online game design).

The representative should still be able to collect the cost of the automobile rental if it can demonstrate that Merian lacked real authority and also lacked apparent power, or that there is a gap between Merian's actual and perceived authority. The representative may be able to sue Winmore Pty Ltd if there is a discrepancy between Merian's real and apparent power. Merian lied about her situation for Elite Cars to hire her a car. This is referred to as "misrepresentation by omission." Under the silent theory, misrepresentation occurs when a person is aware of a representation but does not reveal it.

To launch a case against Winmore Pty Ltd, the representative must demonstrate that Merian had genuine power to hire the automobile since Harry (the director) and Chris (the accounting manager) granted their assent. This transaction was kept secret from the other directors by Merian. Because Merian's job does not represent her status in the organization, there is a distinction between her actual authority and her seeming authority.

Merian has a responsibility to inform the corporation of this knowledge. Merian had no obligation to declare the transaction since Harry, who is one of the company's directors and has actual control over transactions worth more than $2000, gave her permission.

B) Would your answer be different if Merian was held out to Elite Cars Pty Ltd as the managing director of the company?

The Director of Elite Cars Pty Ltd had no right to rely on Merian's supposed authority when Merian pretended to be the managing director of Winmore Pty Ltd. This is because, under the Corporations Act, a director is obligated by the actions of other directors and cannot alter them based on personal preferences. Elite Cars Pty Ltd would be able to refuse to pay the loan since Winmore Pty Ltd has no real or apparent authorization to issue credit to Elite Cars Pty Ltd.

However, if it can be shown that Merian did not have the actual authority to enter into the contract (for example, if she did not have the express or implicit approval of the other directors), then the representative may still be able to sue Winmore Pty Ltd. This is because there would be a discrepancy between Merian's actual authority and her apparent authority.

To launch a case against Winmore Pty Ltd. The representative should still be allowed to collect the debt if it can demonstrate that: Merian lied about her situation for Elite Cars to hire her a car. According to section 128 of

Between Merian's true and seeming power, there lies a chasm. To launch a case against Winmore Pty Ltd, the representative must establish that Merian failed to notify other directors of the transaction. Because Merian's job does not represent her status in the organization, there is a distinction between her actual authority and her apparent authority. Merian has a responsibility to inform the corporation of this knowledge.

C) Would your answer to the above question be similar if Elite Cars were aware of the agreement between Merian and Chris? (4 marks)

When Elite Cars learned of Merian and Chris' arrangement, it was assumed that Elite Cars Pty Ltd had the legal ability to hire a car via Winmore Pty Ltd. This indicates that Merian's depiction is valid. There would be no misrepresentation by silence if Merian presented herself to Elite Cars as the managing director of Winmore Pty Ltd because Chris (one of the directors) gave her permission to hire the automobile. If there is no deception by silence, the representative's capacity to collect the cost of the automobile hire is unaffected.

The representative should be able to recover the cost of the automobile rental if it can demonstrate that: Chris authorized Merian to conduct a transaction with express or implicit agreement from other directors.Because Merian's job does not represent her status in the organization, there is a distinction between her actual authority and her seeming authority.Merian has a responsibility to inform the corporation of this knowledge. Elite Cars would also be able to sue Winmore Pty Ltd if there is a discrepancy between Merian's real and apparent power. Merian lied about her situation for Elite Cars to hire her a car. This is referred to as "misrepresentation by omission." Under the silent theory, misrepresentation occurs when a person is aware of a representation but does not reveal it.

Please advise me what sections can I add from Australian law?