Australian Business Law Business Operations

Question: Describe about the Australian Business Law for Business Operations. Answer: This scenario is about the business carried on by the three families. These families conduct their operations together for the development of resort, but each party owned separate motels. Former owners of the resort want to keep it natural. Therefore, they did not provide any outdoor facilities to the customers, and prefer to keep the things natural. Things changed when Mari and Matt, the son and daughter of the original Tinders make some changes in their property and refurbish it. They also provide some outdoor facilities, and these changes made by Tinders are not informed to the other families. Later on, original owners of the resort decide to retire and looking for possible alternatives to continue the business. For this purpose company engaged rich Richards, an invest advisor for determining the value and operations of the complex, and in his investigation he discovered many legal issues in the operations of complex. Following are legal issues and their relevant details: Whether changes made by Mari and Matt, the son and daughter of the original Tinders, require prior approval of the management committee? Answer: No, changes made by Mari and Matt do not require prior approval of the management committee. It was clear in the scenario that management committee is authorized to make decision related to those matters which are of common concern, and it was also mention that each family owned separate motels. Management committee is authorized to take only common concern decisions. Therefore, Mari and Matt do not require prior approval of management committee. Wages paid to the drivers violate public transportation award or not? Answer: As mentioned in part 5 (5.1) of Transport, Distribution and Courier Industry Award - Southern Division 2003 wages paid to drivers are 200/ week because resort does not paid drivers as per hour, but they paid to the drivers for per ride. According to 1.6 of Transport, Distribution and Courier Industry Award - Southern Division 2003 such awards are legally binding on the employers as well as on the employees. It is clear that company violates the provisions of this award (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, n.d.). Industrial Relations Act 1999 - SECT 8A also stated that minimum wages must be paid to employ. Whether Si owns duty of care towards the boy who fell into the pool? Answer: According to Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), a person owns duty of care towards other person if he is the position in which he can take precautions to avoid foreseeable harm. Section 5B of Civil Liability Act 2002, a person is liable towards the plaintiff if he fail to take precautions in these cases, when risk is foreseeable, risk is insignificant, and person is in the position in which he has to take precautions. In this case Si is liable towards the boy, because he forgot to close the door, and company is also liable towards the boy. Whether Lani and company are responsible for the act done by Bo, and the negligence of Bo? Answer: it must be noted that principle is liable for the acts done by its agent; such acts must be done as per the employment agreement. Therefore, if the acts done by agents in the principle interest than any legal liability arise from the acts done by agent is also binding on the principle. In this case, customers of the resort caused harm from the negligence of the Bo. Therefore Lani and company is also owns duty of care towards customers, and they are also legally obliged towards customers of the resort (Australian Government, n.d.). An owner of another motel use similar name that is paradise grove. Cite legal consequences against that? Answer: in Australia disputes related to similar name of businesses is handled by ASIC under the Business Names Registration Act 2011(ASIC, n.d.). Company can seek legal advice and report to the ASIC that another owner is using name which is nearly identical to the company, and that company is also copy the color theme, sign board of paradise resort. Paradise resort can seek legal aid through ASIC for resolving this dispute (ASIC, n.d.). According to part 3 and section 26 of BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION ACT 2011 (NO. 126, 2011 minister through instrument which is legislative in nature defines the identical or near identical names. Paradise resort is also work under unregistered business name therefore this is considered as an offence under section 18 Business Names Registration Act 2011. References: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Transport, Distribution And Courier Industry Award - Southern Division 2003. Retrieved on 10th October 2016 from: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/resources/pdf/awards/t/t0462_010111.pdf. Australlian Treasury Government. What is the liability of an agent or principal. Retrieved on 10th October 2016 from: https://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Business/Small-Business/Legal-Topics/Business-Relationships/Principals-and-Agents/Agent-liability. New South Wales Consolidated Acts. CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 5B. Retrieved on 10th October 2016 from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s5b.html. ASIC. Disputes about similar business names. Retrieved on 10th October 2016 from: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/disputes-about-similar-business-names/. ASIC. Disputes about similar business names. Retrieved on 10th October 2016 from: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/disputes-about-similar-company-names/.