Describe about the Architectural Project and the Legal Contract.
Scallop and Bob
Introduction to the scenario
The Australian coastal reef and waters support a voluminous amount of different species of scallops. These scallops are primarily dived for in the seasons of may and serve to be a great business venture for many Australian divers, however the industry has been facing different backdrops because sudden drop in the plankton species over the years in the rivers and oceans. The government feels the protection of marine life to be the utmost priority in order to stabilize the economical conditions of the country whereas also making sure to cater to the needs of the aquatic life. The scallops are primarily celebrated as a huge captivating dish in Australian cuisines and for these purposes it has been adopted to be commercially dived and recreationally dived as well by different people. The licenses have been issued and made compulsory for every scallop diver and without this the activity would be considered completely illegal. The enforced stipulation of all these laws increase the amount of the species prevailing in the water but however deals with another key issue which is that people who feel that they can catch much more of the scallops are restricted to work under such conditions and hence the case of Bob has risen.
The main issue which surrounds different people and particularly in this situation is that Bob wants to open a company which would allow him to dive for more than the prescribed amounts set by the Authorities but however he faces the ambiguity because of many legal constraints which either makes this activity to be allowed or not (Townley & Riazi 2014).
The fisheries department of Australia has made a relevant code of conduct for all commercial and recreational divers in the year 1999 which makes it easy for all the divers to take part in this activity by different restrictions such as The Biodiversity act and Environmental protection act passed out by the department (Rui 2015).
Speculative of Application
The law when applied to different amounts of constraints and boundaries simply reveals that how scallop diving is not entirely focused on the protection of the species but also the protection of the market influx and profits earned by selling these scallops to different outsourced companies found outside Australia. The code of conduct however has specific modulations which depict how the diving should be done by licensee holders (Reilly 2014). The necessary handpicked activity requires diving kits and different Scuba gears which are compulsory.
The following arguments have been compiled under the law and therefore will be dealing with justifying in my opinion that how a particular person or Bob in this case is certainly allowed to not only own a company but also expand his business in the outside world.
The law ensures that a single license holder can only facilitate a single boat while diving for scallops and the boat should have at least two people with further permits to carry out the act. If Bob is successful in recruiting more than 5 people to accompany him and coherently form a single company which could not only operate as individuals but the other way around. This would therefore ensure that the company’s catch depending on the individual would be more than 50 tons a year.
The Australian rules and regulations allow the divers to sell their catches outside Australia if any excess amounts remain, the quota when fulfilled by selling the company’s catches to the Marketing agents, Bob could manage to send his catch outside and thus earn more than what he earned single handedly before.
The concluded arguments for all these efforts in my personal opinion is that by law and on strict technical grounds, the law allows Bob to make a company and increase his catch because in the end it is about how every diver wishes to spend his catch and earn the money. The company can be made commercialized with further innovations to its working as there are only 5-6 commercial companies working for scallops in Australia, the existence of these companies show that how the law makes sure that all companies work under a guided rules and moral conducts.
New Nirvana and Nuclear Blast Sounds
Introduction to the scenario
The New Nirvana band has been operating under different Australian company laws since their emergence. The band has been a center of different companies joined together and wholly owned subsidiaries companies working to ensure not only quality concerts but an ideal business venture which supports the band in their concerts and other endeavors.
The key issue which needs to be addressed today in this particular article is that the Nuclear Blast sounds have been made to operate all different concerts of New Nirvana and the technical equipment set ups for the band as well. In a particular concert however, the company had taken the measures to be extreme when they accidently arranged the speaker volumes to high levels, as soon as the music started playing, the people who were near the speakers had injuries to their hearing capabilities and ears (McKendrick 2014). The key issue is that Nuclear Blast sounds may be an independent company but it is a subsidiary company which means that it has no legal insurance policies which might support the claim of the people. The main issue is now to advise the people of their next step which might help them in dealing with these two companies.
Applied Law for the situation
The law in my opinion which best describes this situation to the public who are generally unaware of how corporation work is the Act of Corporation which was drafted by the Australian Bureau in 2001 clearly states that all subsidiary companies which take part in the profit share which amounts up to around almost one third of the profits will be held liable in all legal constraints and framework when faced by any of the mix of all companies (Martin 2016).
Speculative Application of the law
The wholly owned subsidiary companies under the corporation act will all be held under the liability when a single company of the entire mix faces any difficulties. This is because even though the companies may be under different ambits and names, the parent company still holds all the rights towards maintaining the stability of these companies so that they may work more efficiently while still having the right to make their own developmental plans.
The following arguments will justify my opinion of how the public can essentially sue the band and yet still receive different re enactments to how the law will deal with this problems.
The First argument goes entirely against the parent company as well as New Nirvana which further cements the case of the public. The New Nirvana signed up with Nuclear Blast even though by knowing that the company did not have any back up plans initiated in forms of insurance (Lebovits 2016).
A wholly owned subsidiary company by definition and by law strictly operates under a framework which provides that the company has its public and separate identity in the world, but in fact only works as a child company from a larger parent company which has all the shots and stakes at the company’s decisions. Since Nuclear Blasts is one of the wholly owned company, the parent company would then be responsible for the all the legal lawsuits coming in from the public (Liao 2013).
The above said arguments also help us to conclude that the public can therefore file for a lawsuit against New Nirvana as they would be entitled to pay for all medical charges which are required by the patients. This would increase the chances of the public to get reassured for all their problems and damages because by law they are automatically entitled to file for different law suits to the company owners, and especially the ones which are working in offshore places and are known as Parent companies. These parent companies have the skill of supporting all their subsidiary companies from the core with the proper execution of plans and development while also providing different amount of finances to the people (Ibrahim et al. 2015).
Solicitor and Millennium
Introduction to the scenario
The facilitation provided by all different attorneys and solicitors working for firms provide the entire support system to the company and helps it to become independent while making decision without defying any kind of law. These solicitors are responsible for drafting different policies for the company while making investments in different fields. Since Bob was hired as a property lawyer, it makes more sense for him to be at his optimal level and provide support. However the problem arises often when companies are faced with different charges from their own lawyers in form of law suits which can be initiated by a number of problems, one such problem has been discussed below.
The issue here is completely on ethical levels whereas considering professionalism and other moral codes involved in a company. Bob is a property solicitor who had been working with his friend in a company for years and was especially appointed because of his skills and knowledge in the field of his work, However soon the owners decided to let go of Bob by hiring another person who was equally profane about working for the company, this joyous occasion was however over ruled and berated by bob himself who subjected the company in a lawsuit whereas the company owners now face problems on how to escaping from this particular problem (Frankel 2016).
The Australian Moral Code of conduct for different solicitors to follow who are practicing law in the country defines different moral constraints and regulations which can be used in defining and also giving enough reason to the people for eliminating any particular lawyer from the firm. The first and foremost law which can be used is the article 4 which says that the solicitor must be always in the best interest of the company. The section 5 states that the solicitor can at all time are removed from the firm when the company feels that he has proved to be incapable of providing good services to the company (Fadda & Tridico 2014).
Speculative Application of the Law
The Millennium company owners can use all these articles in their favor when Bob makes them appear in the court by providing not only the different evidences of Bob’s incapability and the defiance of the moral code of conducts.
Arguments for the law
The arguments which can be stated in order to free the company of their legal standing in this case are as below.
The first and foremost argument is that the company if did not wanted to extend Bob’s contract because they felt that he was incapable of supplying the company with quality service and under section 5 of the law they were completely legally entitled to remove him from the firm on the basis of not only his performance but also his acts (Bordeleau & Bélanger 2014).
The second argument which can be compiled and show that how Millennium owners act can be justified is that Bob’s direct involvement of the court and the law suit whereas ignoring the clause of the arbitrator in his contract puts him in the direct violation of the moral codes and article six of the book for bringing shame to the company’s name (Chan 2013).
The above made conclusions help the company to establish themselves as completely justified and under the ambit of law for removing the ex solicitor and even without a prior notice. These arguments help the firm to establish themselves as the victims who were facing different amounts of problems from their solicitor who was not up to par and when he was appointed as a property lawyer, while also considering the different amounts of investments of the companies in these properties which could potentially damage all their business if their lawyer was incapable of handling the jobs in the later stages of the work.
Bordeleau, A. and Bélanger, A., 2014. Art, architecture and law: the architectural project and the legal contract as social artefacts.Architecture_MPS, 4(3), pp.1-18.
Chan, C.H.C., 2013. Knowledge sharing and opportunism in new product development: the impacts of contract, commitment and trust.
Fadda, S. and Tridico, P., 2014. Flexibility and productivity: the case of the labour supply contract agreement in Italy. QA Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria.
Frankel, T., 2016. A Story of Three Bank-Regulatory Legal Systems: Contract, Financial Management Regulation and Fiduciary Law. University of Bologna Law Review, 1(1), pp.91-105.
Ibrahim, N., Asuhaimi, F.A., Abd Ghadas, Z.A. and Zakariah, A.A., 2015. The Application of Contract Law Principles in Domestic Contracts. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23.
Lebovits, G., 2016. Making Offers No One Can Refuse: Effective Contract Drafting—Part II. Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Making Offers No One Can Refuse: Effective Contract Drafting—Part II, 88.
Liao, Z., 2013. Intention to Create Legal Relations and the Reform of Contract Law: A Conservative Approach in the Modern Global Era. Beijing L. Rev., 4, p.82.
Martin, P., 2016. Contract law: When changes to the law: Affect rights under contract. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (22), p.86.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Reilly, R.F., 2014. The Valuation of Contract-Related Intangible Assets.American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, 33(9), p.22.
Rui, X., 2015. The Legality of Valuation Adjustment Mechanism Contract with Target Company Being Counterparty. Securities Market Herald, 5, p.013.
Townley, A. and Riazi, M., 2014. Analysis of authentic legal negotiation: Implications for teaching contract negotiation to undergraduate law students.International Journal of Language Studies, 8(4).