1. Issue
Whether Bob can catch more than fifty tones of scallop fishes by incorporating a company or not.
This case is based on the provision of Fisheries Management Act 1994, Fisheries Management (Supporting plan) Regulation 2006 and Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 2010. Fisheries Management Act 1994 was coded with the objective to protect and develop the fishery resources (Dutra et al. 2015). This Act is applicable to all waters within the limits of the state and restricts every individuals not to catch fishes exceed the quota limit specified by this Act (Marchal et al. 2016). Section 17 of this Act has provided the maximum bag limits to catch fish and if any one tries to violate the norms, he/she has to face certain penalties like fine and/or imprisonment. It is also provided by the Act that the legal guideline concerning fishing right and the restrictions imposed on the individual vary as per the location. For the determination of the number of total allowable catch of fish, a committee has been set up by this Act (section 26) (Fletcher et al. 2016). The committee will call for a public submission before the final decision (section 31). The committee can review its decision and may decide to alter the quantity of fish. This Act is also applicable on fishing equipments.
As per the provision of Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 1995, the bag limit of scallops fishes are limited through section 17(1). The limitations on the fishes are applicable on per day basis.
In this case, Bob Beech, a scallop angler catch fishes in Jervis Bay of New South Wales. Scallop fishes are identified as a certain kind of species. There were certain guidelines on catching scallop fishes, as they are limited in number. He has to catch specified number of fishes, though he has an ability to catch more fishes. His daughter suggests him to incorporate a company to make his catch double.
The marine eco-system of Australia is formulated through Fisheries Management Act 1994 and Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 1995, which were amended by day to day. As per the rules of the Fisheries Management Act, 1994 the provision is applicable to all water and every individual comes under the area of states. If Bob Beech wants to incorporate a company to double his catch, he must know the legislation regarding fisheries. Moreover, establishing a company may not be a suitable option as the statutory rights relating to the fishery is applicable to all, even on a company. Bob Beech should know the general principle of Fisheries Management Act, 1994. He must obtain a commonwealth fishing permission to catch fish in high seas (Fulton, Smith and Johnson 2014).
Furthermore, it is a fact that even a company has to follow the bag limit for scallops, as these norms are applicable to all. As per the Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 1995, daily limit of scallop is up to 30 based on sack and 48 based on crates (Arlinghaus et al. 2016). According to section 18(1) of the regulation, the commercial anglers can apply for a dredge or similar devices for catching scallop fishes but it is to be mentioned that the statutory rights are applicable to fishing equipments also.
Conclusion:
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be decided that the suggestion given by the daughter of Bob Beech is not a good option, as he has to abide by all the rules of Fisheries Management Act 1994 along with the Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 1995 in either case. Although, Bob has an option to export the scallops in the Asian market, which can be profitable to him.
2. Issue
As per the case study, the issue is whether injured audience can make liable for Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd’s negligence for their permanent hearing loss.
As per the case study, Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd controlled the sound system for the Nirvana’s concert. For the high sound, level five audiences. Therefore, the audience knows the consequences of the band performance (Wheeler 2014). It is a case of contributory negligence. Donogue vs. Stevenson is one of the famous case f negligence where the plaintiff sued defendant for negligent the duty of care to her (Vines 2013). Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961) is another case where the service provider who breach the duty of care and liable for negligence towards the plaintiff (Levy, Golden and Sacks 2016).
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] is another case of negligence where the plaintiff claim the damages from the defendant who breach the duty of care (Wheeler 2014).
As per the case study, Nirvana Ltd is a company control by the members of the hard rock band, is involved, and settles with the live band concert. The Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd manages the sound equipment of the company in the Australia. When the rock band performing in Sydney the sound company set the sound level too high and cause the permanent hearing loss of five audiences (Wheeler 2014). Therefore, the audiences make liable the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd for their negligence in setting up the sound level too high (Levy, Golden and Sacks 2016).
Negligence is one of the important parts of tort law where one party failed to provide the actual and proper reasonable care for avoid causing injuries or loss other party. Therefore, when the plaintiff sue defendant he must satisfy all the important facts that establish the reason of negligence (Gifford and Robinette2014). Those are:
As per the case of Donogue vs. Stevenson case, the plaintiff suffered mentally sock for the negligence by the defendant. The defendant provide a bottle of ginger beer where the plaintiff found a dead snail and she fall sick. Therefore, for the negligence toward the duty of care cause the harm to the plaintiff (Henderson 2017).
As per the given case study, when the sound company manage the sound level they must aware of the sound because it may cause harm to the audience. It is their duty that they do their duty of care when they provide the service to the audience. However, for the negligence of managing the sound level by the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd cause harm and the audience suffered the permanent hair loss (Gifford and Robinette2014).
In Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] case, the defendant admitted the negligence of duty of care toward the plaintiff’s employer. The defendant also breach the duty of care and the plaintiff cause the damages (Henderson 2017). Therefore, in the live band program the audience can make liable the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd for their permanent hearing loss because they beach their duty of care. The Civil Liability Act provides determine individual people for the negligence and they must face the result of any negligence acts of their parts (Henderson 2017).
Conclusion:
As per the case study, the facts can be conclude that the five audiences who attend the live band concerts and suffered the permanent hearing loss for the high sound level can sue and make liable the Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd for the negligence.
3 Issue
As per the case study, the issue is as a solicitor of the company, Don ca bring any legal actions against the other two solicitors of the company for appoint a new solicitor without informing him.
As per the case study, the article between the three solicitors of the company mentioned that if any disputes arise, they first take the references from the arbitrator for solving the disputes (Cole 2016). Therefore, as Don who faced the confliction with other solicitors must take help from the arbitrator for the dispute resolution. As per the constitution of the company, the directors and shareholder may use the replaceable rules if they do not want to follow the constitution of the company (Birt et al. 2014).
As per the case study, Simon, Michael and Don all three of them set up the project management company named Millennium Pty Ltd where Don is a solicitor and work on land purchase or sales as a solicitor. However, other two organizers thought to recruit a new solicitor for the company. As per the article between the organizers, it is already mentioned that they must refer to an arbitrator first for any disputes, which arise between the company and its members. Now Don takes legal actions against the company (Cole 2016).
However, the constitution of company is not always mandatory for the proprietary company where it only used as per the rules governing of a company’s directors and shareholders. as per the Corporation Act 2001 of Australia provides the replaceable rules to the companies where they do not want to follow the constitution of the company which deals with the appointment and powers of the directors, regulations for the meeting of both directors and members, rights of shares and transfer of shares. The replaceable rule has only applicable for the members of the company. If someone breach the rues that will not applies as per the corporation act.
As per the constitution of the company, the members have the rights to deny to follow the rules where they deny the rules there must be a replaceable rules apply. According the case study, Don is nominates as a solicitor for any land purchases or sales made by the company. However, the other two members again appoint a solicitor. A dispute arises between the company and the members. As per the constitution of the company, member can deny the rules of the constitution only when they use the replaceable rules on the replacement of the constitution with the special resolution (Brush and Van Staden 2016). As per the written article between the members, they first refer to an arbitrator if any conflict arises. Therefore, two members deny the constitutions and appoint another solicitor but they must apply the replaceable rule as a replacement of the constitution of the company. Don also denied the constitution rules and directly takes legal actions against the company. Though he need to go to the arbitrator for the disputes, he can take legal actions (Birt et al. 2014).
Conclusion:
As per the case study, Simon, Michael has denied the constitution of the company and appoints another solicitor without the applications of replaceable rules. Don who was not only forms the company and appoint as a solicitor of the company. Therefore, he also denies the written article and takes legal actions against the company.
Reference:
Arlinghaus, R., Lorenzen, K., Johnson, B.M., Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G., 2016. Management of freshwater fisheries: addressing habitat, people and fishes. Freshwater fisheries ecology. Wiley, Chichester, pp.557-579.
Birt, J., Chalmers, K., Maloney, S., Brooks, A., Oliver, J. and Janson, P., 2014. Accounting: Business Reporting for Decision Making 5e.
Brush, D. and Van Staden, B., 2016. Shareholders’ agreements for new companies and start-ups. Governance Directions, 68(4), p.231.
Carey, P., 2016. Should We Keep Running up the Hill: LM v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana. King’s Inns Student L. Rev., 6, p.30.
Club, A.S., 2014. Constitution of Alexandra Ski Club. Constitution, 510, p.24032014.
Cole, S., 2016. Good governance and the curious case of the alternate director. Governance Directions, 68(10), p.603.
DeMott, D., 2016. Culpable Participation in Fiduciary Breach.
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562
Dutra, L.X., Bustamante, R.H., Sporne, I., van Putten, I., Dichmont, C.M., Ligtermoet, E., Sheaves, M. and Deng, R.A., 2015. Organizational drivers that strengthen adaptive capacity in the coastal zone of Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, pp.64-76.
Fletcher, W.J., Wise, B.S., Joll, L.M., Hall, N.G., Fisher, E.A., Harry, A.V., Fairclough, D.V., Gaughan, D.J., Travaille, K., Molony, B.W. and Kangas, M., 2016. Refinements to harvest strategies to enable effective implementation of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management for the multi-sector, multi-species fisheries of Western Australia. Fisheries Research, 183, pp.594-608.
Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D., Smith, D.C. and Johnson, P., 2014. An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level management strategy evaluation. PLoS One, 9(1), p.e84242.
Gifford, D.G. and Robinette, C.J., 2014. Apportioning liability in Maryland tort cases: Time to end contributory negligence and joint and several liability.
Henderson Jr, J.A., 2017. Learned Hand’s Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence Law. Cal. L. Rev., 105, p.165.
Hutchinson, A.C., 2013. Some What If Thoughts: Notes on Donoghue v Stevenson. Osgoode Hall LJ, 51, p.701.
Kimberly, G.A. and Angus, I.G., The Boeing Company, 2016. Use of multiple digital signatures and quorum rules to verify aircraft information. U.S. Patent 9,237,022.
Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses (Vol. 1). California Torts.
Macdonald, R.D. and Ramsay, I., 2016. The Australian Sports Commission’s Governance Reform in Sport Discussion Paper and Voting Rules in Corporate Constitutions.
Marchal, P., Andersen, J.L., Aranda, M., Fitzpatrick, M., Goti, L., Guyader, O., Haraldsson, G., Hatcher, A., Hegland, T.J., Floc’h, L. and Macher, C., 2016. A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand. Fish and Fisheries.
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] QSC 79 (Supreme Court of Queensland, Jackson J, 11 April 2016)
Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961)
Vines, P., 2013. The protected apology as the modern response to the moral question at the heart of Donoghue v Stevenson: What if Stevenson had apologised. Juridical Review: Law Journal of Scottish Universities, 3, pp.483-500.
Wheeler, R., 2014. Res Ipsa Loquitur & Medical Negligence: A Comparative Survey. Medical Law Review, 22(3), pp.450-452.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download