1A)TraceyAs a director of Homewares ltd, Tracey breached several duties that she should not have fulfilled when she signed the contract to become a director of the company.First of all Tracey had a duty to “avoid conflicts of interest” therefore he must avoid any conflict of duties or personal interests, for example he must not be in competition with the company he works for or be part of the board of directors of a competitor. However Tracey breached both of these duties as Tracey took Homewares ltd's suppliers to another company in breach of contract to avoid conflicts of interest. Furthermore Tracey has set up her own company and is on the board of directors of that company, which 'mirrors' Homewares ltd but with the only difference that it also covers gardens, meaning this prevents Tracey from making any personal gain from Homewares ltd.( Adams, A (2010). law for business students. 6th ed.: Adams, A. p475-476.) Tracey also had a conflict with the "property diversion clause" which applies when taking a well-established business and accordingly try to create your own replicated business. In the case of Cook v Deeks (1916), in which Deeks entered into a new contract with another company while acting as a director of his previous business, the three directors were held to have breached their duty of loyalty to the company. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_v_Deeks) The board could argue that Tracey would not be able to resign mainly because the supplier who left them was also related to her and she cannot use personal connections to compete with Homewares ltd as this would involve exploitation of Homewares ltd for their own personal interest while they were originally the suppliers. This can be seen in the case of Regal Hastings V G...... middle of the paper ...... I have to consult everyone regarding making decisions. Another advantage is that this type of business would be more suitable for Peter because he would have a high level of flexibility as he would not have to consult anyone on the decisions he has to make and will also only have to pay income tax and corporation tax. This means that if the business were to fail, the risk is low in terms of personal finances being at risk. I believe the best option for Peter to decide on is to go into a limited company as he would have limited liability and free to make whatever decision he thinks is right for the company. Furthermore, he would not be limited to following the guidelines, but would need to include all partners in everything he does. The flexibility and profit that Peter has at his disposal make this type of business the best that Peter can engage in.