Skip to main content

Common legal bloopers a start-up should avoid

 In recent years, we have witnessed a tremendous upsurge in start-ups business.This resurgence in entrepreneurial spirit could be attributed  to various favourable latitudes and easy-business ecosystem, which many countries are vigorously accommodating in their economic and social spheres. India in particular has really become a magnet for start-up hubs, attracting massive investments, evolving technology and burgeoning market. However, in the  excitement of launching a business, the necessary evils of legal considerations and compliances are often kept at bay. This could add up to a huge mistake that any entrepreneur can make.


Therefore it is very crucial for any entrepreneur or a would-be entrepreneur to keep following legal considerations in mind to avoid any blunders:-

 


Error in choosing the right corporate entity for your start-up

Some of the most basic questions a start-up faces are “Should i be an entity?” and of what type? Perhaps a corporation, LLC or proprietorship etc. What is best suited for my business? These common questions have serious consequences and an error in deciding on your business entity can lead to disaster for your start-up. A corporate structure ensures your “separateness”, which protects you from unlimited personal liability. Different structures offer different opportunities and restrictions. For example if you do not want losses for your start-up, go for a limited company.


Therefore it is imperative to consult a good corporate lawyer early on to make things easier in long run, especially if you wish to attract investors since this will ensure your start-up has all correct legal paperwork in order.

 


Not having a corporation or LLC members agreement

How do you decide who should act as a CEO, what should be the contribution of each member or how to split equity? There are so many questions that founders do not think about. Your long term business plans would seldom be consistent, if there is no instrument to determine your organisation’s operating terms.

 


Jeopardizing your intellectual property rights

Intellectual property is a start-up’s most valuable asset. Whether it is a trademark, patent or copyright, they all require legal protection. In the midst of various things that go into building a business, intellectual properties are often not in priority or are considered as too expensive proposition for a start-up to act on. If you don’t protect your intellectual property, you are exposing your business to others. Therefore, it is essential to register your intellectual property as soon as possible.

 


Not having adequate employment agreement

It is important to have a contract with everyone who is working in your start-up and their classification. Whether they are an employee or independent contractors, it is common for employers to provide computers, email and interest access. There should be a well-drafted work-place policies that govern how these systems can be used or restrict employees from sharing confidential information.

 


Not adhering to securities law

Once a start-up is incorporated, they normally issue stocks or equity to investors, friends or families etc. These are governed by securities law. Which are very complicated. Issuing stocks which do not comply with specific disclosures or filing requirements lead to serious legal repercussions.

 


Mixing your personal expenses with business expenses

When setting-up a start-up, there are chances where your personal and business expenses become indistinguishable. This can lead to confusion when taxes are being filed or deductions being disallowed by revenue authorities. The company therefore, should ensure there is a financial account early on itself and there should be a separate record of expenses.

 


Lack of proper documentation

Every activity or transaction in your start-up must be properly recorded. Documentation of employees and interactions involving your company is very important. These considerations have serious influence on due diligence procedures which can make or break an investment deals.

 


Not insuring important tax considerations

Adhering to a sound tax-planning is very crucial for your business, as it can save lot of money and protect you from incurring liabilities. It is important to take stock of your profit and loss statement regularly and pay taxes on time and in prescribed instalments. Your start-up must have a tax consultant to insure all regulations are being followed. This would give you more time to focus on your company. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more