Please assits

John was employed to Big Wheels Auto Ltd as the Senior Director for Servicing and Repairs. His employment contract had stipulated that if he resigns he should not solicit the clients of Big Wheels for at least 1 year. John resigned from Big Wheels and formed a company Better Wheels Auto within one month and asked the marketing manager at Better Wheels to solicit the Big Wheels clients. Big Wheels threaten to sue John for breach of the covenant and he responded that he is condent that he will be successful because as he saidr "I am not soliciting the clients. my company is] and I am a separate legal entity from my company\". Big Wheels come to you for advice. What is the correct advice to give to them? O a. They will not be successful because John is rightr based on the separate legal personality principle found in Salomon v Salomon a: Ca. (139?) O b. They will be successful because John used a name for his company that was too similar to their name as seen in Ewing vuttertup Margarine Co. Ltd. {1531 1'] O c. They will not be successful because the court will lift the veil only in very limited circumstances as seen in Adams 1r Cape Industries pic {199B} O d. They will be successful under the heading of fraud as seen in Gifford Motor Co. Ltd it Home (1933} One of the differences between a company and a partnership is that: a. A company can start up without any formalities but a partnership must have a deed. . One man can form a partnership while a company requires more than one. A company's shareholders cannot limit their liability while partners can. O d. A company has separate legal personality from its owners while a partnership does not.The cases have shown that the courts have lifted the corporate veil for several reasons. Which of the following is not a reason for the courts to lift the corporate veil? O a. limit liability {where the members are granted limited liability after incorporation} C1 b. agency .e. where the company was merely the agent of the shareholders} O c. group enterprises tie. where, instead of treating each company in the group as a separate entity] the group is considered as one entity} Od. fraud {where individuals use the Solomon principle to commit fraud] The articles of a Silent Lid contained a clause stating that James Murray, who was a shareholder of the company, was to be appointed as the company's accountant. Months have passed and James was not so appointed. James is extremely upset and decides to sue Silent Lid for breach of contract. What would be your advice to James? O a. James would not be successful because he was the one who breached the contract as seen in Swabey v Port Darwin Gold Mining Co. (1889) O b. James would not be successful because he would be seen as an outsider as in Eley v The Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (1876) O c. James would be successful because the court would lift the veil as in Salomon v Salomon & Co. (1897) O d. James would be successful because this is a personal right as seen in Rayfield v Hands (1960)Under the Companies Act 2004; in order to incorporate a business we must file the following documents: 0 a. Articles of Incorporation Ob. Articles of Incorporation and Articles of Association 0 c. Memorandum of Association 0 d. Articles of Association and Memorandum ofAssociation One of the significant changes brought about by The Companies Act 2004 was that: O a. Public companies could not have more than 20 members O b. Incorporating a business required the filing of articles of incorporation only, instead of memorandum of association and articles of association O c. Companies could now be seen as one and the same with the shareholders Od. Private companies could now have unlimited membershipMatthew Mark and Luke, three auto mechanics, were delighted to start an auto repair and auto parts business and decided that they would incorporate a private company to do so. It was to be called Mechanics Ltd. They were short on capital however so they approached ABC Lid, a company, to be a shareholder in their private company. John, the company secretary and accountant for Mechanics Ltd decided that he will not file accounts because it was a private company. John wants to know if he is on good ground in not filing accounts. The correct response to John would be: O a. Mechanics Lid should not file accounts because it will disclose confidential information O b. Mechanics Ltd should not file accounts because it is a private company. O c. Mechanics Lid should file accounts even though it is a private company, because some of its shares are held by a company O d. Mechanics Ltd should file accounts because the auto repair business has a lot of fraud involved in itMark is planning to form a private company and he decides to send out a prospectus and invite the public to subscribe for shares. Which of the following would be your advice to Mark? O a. He is on good grounds because a prospectus is needed in order to provide information to prospective investors O b. He can proceed as planned as long as he files a statutory declaration O c. He cannot invite the public to subscribe for shares given the type of company he is forming O d. He cannot proceed as planned because he needs at least three directorsA personal guarantee given to a bank by a member of a company may affect limited liability in the following way: O a. The member would be personally responsible to all the company's trade creditors O b. The member will be protected from the bank because of the company is a separate legal entity O c. The member will be personally responsible for the bank loan if the company fails to pay O d. The member will have unlimited liability if the company is sued for negligence following a slip and fall at the company's premisesHow can a promoter limit his pre-incorporation exposure and when would this not be effective? O a. With an express provision in the contract stating that the promoter is bound by the contract and entitled to its benefits. This would not be effective if the company adopts the contract O b. With an express provision in the contract stating that the promoter is not in any event bound by the contract or entitled to its benefits. This would not be effective if the company pays for the goods that were ordered O c. With an express provision in the contract stating that the promoter is bound by the contract but not entitled to its benefits. This would not be effective if the company declares that it is entitled to the benefits of the contract O d. With an express provision in the contract stating that the promoter is not in any event bound by the contract or entitled to its benefits. This would not be effective if the company does not adopt the contract