contractandmindandQuestionCompletequestion2,page164,Lipton,HerzbergandFICoperatesaninvestmentcounselingbusinessspecializinginadvisingits sonhowtoinvesttheirretirementbenefits.Whileattendingaconference,Abe(thenon-executivedirectorsofFIC),introducedhimselftoMice(themanagingdirectorofCCPty,adirectmarketing herbusinesscard,MicetoldAbethather wasnegotiatinganagreementtosellitsinnovativedirectfinancialmarketingsystemtoFIC’smaincompetitor.AbewaspartiallyimpressedwithCC’sdirectfinancialmarketingsystem.HewasoneoftheopinionsthatFICshouldmovequicklyandacquirethesystembeforeitwenttoFIC’scompetitor.AbeofferedMice$3millionforthesystem.MicegaveAbeasaleagreementwhichhesigned,”Abe,forandbehalfofFIC”.Phillip,FIC’smanagingdirector,recentlylearnedwhatAbehaddone.HewasnotasenthusiasticasAbeaboutthedirectfinancialmarketingsystemandwasoneoftheopinionthatFICwasnotboundbytheagreementAbesigned,asthematterhadnotbeenapprovedbyPhilliporthefullboardofFIC.ExinwhetherCCPtycanenthesaleagreementagainstFIC.WouldyouranswerbedifferentiftheagreementhadbeenenteredintobyPhillip,managingdirector,forandonbehalfofSherlyn,themarketingmanagerofCustomaryauthorityofindividualdirectors,accordingtoNorthsidedevelopmentsPtyvRegistrar-General(1990),anindividualdirectordoesnothavecustomaryauthoritytomakecontractonbehalfofthe.S128(1):a dealingwitha isentitledtomakecertainassumptionsofregularityinrelationtothosedealings.The isnotabletoassertthatanyoftheassumptionsareincorrect.S129(3):a mayassumethatanyonewhoisheldoutbythe tobeanofficeroragentofthe hasbeendulyhasauthoritytoexercisethepowersandperformthedutiescustomarilyexercisedorperformedbythatkindofofficeroragentofasimilarHere,inthecase,MicegotabusinesscardfromAbe,soshemustknowAbeisaindividualdirectorinFIC,shecanassumethatAbehasthecustomaryauthorityofanindividualdirector,sinceanindividualdirectorcannotenterintoacontractonbehalfof,sotheFICisnotliableforthiscontract,thiscontractmadebyAbeandMiceisnotbound.However,ifthecontractwasmadebyPhillip-themanagingdirectorofFIC,amanagingdirectorhasthecustomaryauthoritytomakeanycontractsrelatedtotheday-to-daymanagementofthe ’sbusiness.Thisincludesengaging stodoworkforthe manandLockyervBuckhurstParkProperties(Mangal) [1964])andborrowingmoneyonthe ’sbehalf(BritishThomson-HoustonCovFeferatedEuropeanBank Inthiscase,wedon’tknowifthe$3millioncontractcanbelongtotheday-to-daybusinessofFICornot,weneedtoknowthenature,scaleoftheButifthecontractwasmadebyamarketingmanager,itwasnotbound,becauseamarketingmanagerdon’thavecustomaryauthority.QuestionCompletequestion3,page165,Lipton,Herzbergand--(CEOA未通知B，以公司資產(chǎn)抵押，私用公章借錢，跑路。過程與公司章程相悖.銀行Assumptionsins129Whichassumptionsarerelevant?)FawltyTrucksPtycarriesonaninterstatetruckingbusiness.Ithas2directorsBasil,themanagingdirector,andhiswifeSybilwhoisalsothe ’ssecretary.Apartfromitsfleetoftrucks,the alsoownsthehousewherethedirectorslive。BasilandSybil’smarriagehasbrokendownandtheyhaveseparated.Sybilcontinuestoliveatthehouseandisnotinvolvedintheday-to-dayoperationsofthe ’sbusiness.Basillivesinahowithhisson,Manuel.ThreemonthsagoBasil,withoutlinghiswife,borrowed$100,000fromEastpacBanktobeusedby ally.TheloanwassecuredbyafirstmortgageoverFawltyTrucksPty’shouse,occupiedbySybil.Themortgagewasexecutedunderthe ’ssealwitnessedbyBasilasdirectorandManuelas secretary.However,contrarytothe 'sconstitution,boardapprovalhadnotbeenobtainedforthemortgage.Atthetimethemortgagewasexecuted,BasiltoldtheEastpacBankmanagerwhoapprovedtheloanthatSybilhadresigned辭職as secretaryandthatManuelhadbeenappointedtothatposition.Basilthentookthe$100,000anddisappearedwithManueltoBarcelona.SybilhasnowbeenmadeawarethatBasilmortgagedthehouse.ShelsEastpacBankthatthemortgagewasinvalidbecauseitwasnotsealedproperly.ExinwhetherEastpacBankcanrelyontheassumptionsins129.Whichassumptionsarerelevant? Unders128(1),a dealingwitha isentitledtomakecertainassumptionsofregularityinrelationtothosedealings.The isnotabletoassertthatanyoftheassumptionsareincorrect.Inourcases,thebankdealingwithfawltytrucksisentitledtomakecertainassumptionsofregularityinrelationtothosedealings, isnotabletoassertthatanyofassumptionsareincorrectin129,andasheldinBNZvFiberi ,theassumptionscanberelieduponmorethan assumption— re Unders129(1),adealingwithacoycanassumethatthecoy’sconsandanyapplicablerrhavebeen BankofNZvFiberi(assumethesealofthecoyisusedincompliancewithconstitutionwhileitisnottrueinfact.).Therefore,thebankcanassumethatthesealof (2)“holdout”--Unders129(3),a dealingwithacoycanassumethatanyonewhoisheldoutbythecoytobeanofficeroranagentofthecoyhasbeendulyappointedandhascustomarypowers/authorityofsuchanofficeroragentofasimilarcoy.WhetherManuelhastheauthoritytobeassecretarydependsonthefollowingaholdingoutbythecoythata isanofficeroragent;Inourcase,BasilwasthedirectorsandhadtheactualauthoritytoholdoutManuelasThepowerexercisedbythe iswithinthescopeofthepowercustomarilyexercisedorperformedbyanofficeroragentofasimilarcoy.AccordingtoPanoramaDevelopments(Guildford)vFidelisFurnishingFabrics ,generally,thesecretaryhascustomarypowertomakecontractrelatedtoadministrativeaffairs,suchasemploystaff,hirecars.Inourcases,Manuelwitnessingthemortgagewasexecutedunderthe ’ssealisageneralactionsofthesecretary.Therefore,thebankcanassumethatManuelhasareasonableauthorityandthewitnessof ’sealis(3)FiduciarydutyUnderS129(4),a dealingwithacoycanassumethatofficersandagentsofthe properlyperformtheirdutiestothe.Inourcase,Basilisdirectorofacoy,andenteredintoacontractinhisinterestratherthanthecoy.However,asthedirectorof (4)SignedwithcommonsealUnders129(6),theoutsidercanassumethata hasbeendulyexecutedwherethe ’scommonsealappearstohavebeenfixedtothedocanditappearstohavebeenwitnessedinaccordancewiths127(2).s127(2) acoymayexecuteawithusingacommonsealifthesealisfixedtothedoc&thefixingofthesealiswitnessedby(a)2Directorsofcoy;or(b)aDirector&aSecretary;(c)pty:asoleDirectorwho’salsoSecretary.inaIfa executesa inthisway,outsidercanrelyons129(6)evenifitisnottrue.InMYTcase,ifthecoysealisaffixedtoacontractbuttheaffixingorwitnessingofthesealisnotcompliancewiththeconstitution,thecontractmaystillbeeffective.AndinBrick&PipeIndustrialcase,eveniftheofficerwhosignsorwitnessesa doesnotoccupythedesignatedposition, appearsandtheoutsidercanassumeitwasdulyexecuted.UnderS129(5)/(6),norequirementtoprovethatthe signingthe orwitnessingthefixingofthesealwasheldoutornamedbythecoyasrelevantofficer.Itissufficientifthe appearsonitsfacetohavebeensigned,orthe sealwitnessedbytherequiredofficer.Buttheyarevoidifs128(