Question 1 Jairus is a director of a company called Big Vision Pty Ltd. Jairus needs to lease office premises to run the business from. Jairus approaches a landlord of existing premises which Jairus thinks would be perfect to run the company from. The landlord, Rob Dodger, tells Jairus that the premises are currently leased to other tenants but that the lease to those tenants will expire in two months. Rob assures Jairus that he would then be happy to enter into a fixed term five-year lease contract with Jairus. Jairus shakes hands with Rob and begins to organize for the transfer of Big Vision company business from its old address to the new premises. Jairus notifies the Australian Securities Investment Commission of the changes and executes necessary documentation. Jairus contacts all the company's customers and advises them of the company's new future address. Jairus also pays an Interior Designer in advance, who is going to design and refurbish the interior of the new premises to suit the market image of his company. In the meantime, Rob Dodger is negotiating with his current tenants for them to extend their current lease at an increased price for a further ten years. He knows they are considering paying a higher rent and he is waiting for them to make up their mind before he commits to Jairus. He deliberately delays signing any contract with Jairus, but he promises to do so telling Jairus "don't worry, everything is fine, we will sign shortly". It transpires that Rob actually re-leases the premises to his current tenants instead of entering into a lease contract with Jairus. Jairus is disappointed and seeks your advice. REQUIRED: With reference to relevant legal principles, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Jairus on whether he can enforce the promise against Rob Dodger. Please explain fully, using relevant case law.Question 3 Mrs Broderick bought $70 000 shares in Quick Motors Pty Ltd when the company was incorporated by herfriends Mrand Mrs Cussock. This amounted to 25 % of issued shares. The remaining 75% were taken up by Mr and Mrs Cussock and their son Jeremiah (25% each). The company ran profitably for several years. Over the first 3 years, dividends were paid out of profits but in year 4, there was a falling out between Mrs Broderick on the one hand and Mr and Mrs Cussock on the other. After this time, the company paid no profits. However, the company paid salaries and bonuses and directors fees to the Cussock family. They retained additional funds in the Retained Earnings account and did not allow Mrs Broderick to inspect the records of the company. This had the effect of ensuring that the Cussocks received a steady income stream, while Mrs Broderick received no funds from the company for the next 3 years. She has tried to sell her shares, but the Cussocks are the only ones she is permitted to sell to, and they offered her $10 000 for her investment. It is now the fourth year since Mrs Broderick has received a dividend from the company, and she has come to seek your advice as to her position. She believes that the company is being run solely to benefit the Cussock family and that she has been oppressed by their actions. REQUIRED: Mrs Broderick seeks your advice. With reference to relevant legal principles use the IRAC legal problem solving approach to determine the likely legal outcome of any contemplated civil suit.Question 4 Rapid Stop Limited ("Rapid Stop") is a manufacturer, distributor and supplier of Motor Vehicle alternators. Rehan is a director of Rapid Stop. He was formerly the managing director of Rapid Stop. Rehan has not been re-appointed as managing director, however he continues to act as managing director with the knowledge and acquiescence of the board of directors. Due to the abundance of cheaper imported alternators from other countries, the demand for Rapid Stop's more costly car alternators has decreased. Some of Rapid Stop's major clients have reduced or cancelled their orders, which has affected Rapid Stop's cash flow significantly. All of Rapid Stop's assets have been given as security to its bank for the loan provided by the bank to Rapid Stop. The bank has refused to supply Rapid Stop with further finance and the company has been unable to find alternative ways of raising capital. In March 2020 Rapid Stop's major client goes into liquidation. This puts Rapid Stop's cash flow under further pressure and the company therefore delays payments to its creditors. The creditors initially do not enforce payment, but most of the creditors begin to put Rapid Stop on "cash on delivery' ('COD') terms whereas they had previously allowed at least 30 days' credit. Other creditors even send lawyers' letters threatening to commence legal action against Rapid Stop to enforce payment of the debts owing. Certain cheques given to creditors as payment are dishonoured, in other words they 'bounce'. The company taxes of $105 million are due and payable by the end of July. On the 1st August 2020, Rehan enters into a contract for the relining of a blast furnace used in the production of the steel casings of their products as, without the repair being done, the production of alternators by Rapid Stop would come to a halt. Rehan does not consult the board of directors before entering into the contract and the other directors are unaware of the existence of the contract. The cost of the repair is $50 million, leaving Rapid Stop with assets of only $75 million. As at the date of completion of the repair, the company taxes remain unpaid and no extension of time has been agreed to by the Australian Taxation Office. The other directors deny that Rapid Stop is bound by the contract. REQUIRED: With the aid of the IRAC legal problem solving approach advise Rehan in detail whether he has breached the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) including whether he could successfully raise any defence. LE