The proposal will be presented before the protestors who are dissatisfied and have expressed their dissatisfaction through the young members of the tribe. The tribe agrees to take action in accordance with the presented propositions:
Firstly, the welfare of the tribe will be of the main concern to the tribe.
Secondly, the tribe shall make sure that the decisions taken by them shall not be partial by nature and shall be in favour of the tribe.
Thirdly, a selected group of members shall be elected by the other members of the tribe having the duty to implement and execute decisions made by the oldest and eldest member from amongst the tribes.
Fourthly, a segmented group of people shall be nominated by the members of the tribe and they shall address the disputes regarding the decisions made by the oldest and eldest member from amongst the tribe.
The rules that are established shall be executed in an effective manner. The rules shall be applicable to all the members of the tribe in an equal manner.
To prevent uncertainty and any type of misconception regarding the major rules that are applicable, there shall be a set of secondary rules that would make sure that the major rules are valid in nature.
The secondary rules are established rules and the stagnant rules shall be subject to modification with the formation of the secondary rules. The secondary rules shall be established which would state the process to delete or modify or incorporate additional rules.
To counter social pressure, rules shall be changed and this would determine the infringement of primary rules and shall be adjudicated accordingly.
Proper implementation of the given rules require a certain level of subjugation and amongst the members of the tribe,
As per the legal rules introduced by the legal philosopher, Hart, a legal system should be included and it should be comprised of the following secondary rules:
The secondary rules should be formed and this would prevent ambiguity in the primary rules. It would also allow the primary rules to be authoritative in nature.
The rule must be introduced and this would stipulate the static nature of the primary rules that are changeable in nature. The rules of recognition also comprises of provisions relating to the recognition of change.
In order to remove ambiguity regarding social pressure, rules should be introduced and the same would help the authoritative body to understand any violation of the major rules and state the procedure to address legal issues.
The Tribes included rules related to adjudication, change and recognition as part of their proposal. This was included to prevent any uncertainty regarding the rules and the secondary rules established would determine the existence of the primary rules. In the provided case study, as well, the protestors were not happy with the fact that the decisions made by the elder people of the tribe were partial and there was no way their decision could be challenged. Under the given case scenario, if the legal system of Australia was applied then the legislature would be making laws that shall be applicable to all members of the tribe in an equal manner. The executive branch would be administering or executing the laws making sure that the laws are executed effectively. Moreover, the Courts would be empowered to address and resolve all the disputes by explaining the provisions of the law. The decisions taken by the Court would not be biased in nature and the Courts would always justify or explain the reason for any decision taken by them which otherwise the elder member of the tribe would not do.
There were differences between the legal system of tribe and the Australian legal system with regards to enforcement, recognition and binding nature of laws. The tribe has been alleged to have been less consistent with the decisions taken earlier by them. As per the legal system taken by the tribe, the elder members from amongst the tribe had the authority to make decisions and were alleged that their decisions were partial and they always favored their family and friends while decision making.
Moreover, if a decision was taken against the wrong doer then the same would not have a binding affect on the wrongdoer. Additionally, some of the members would ignore the decisions taken by the elder member of the family. There was no right to challenge the decision taken by them and neither did they ever justify their decisions. Sometimes the members of the tribe would only lie about their misconduct to receive favorable decision from the side of their elders. At the time of taking decisions, the decision makers would not consider the giving proper reasons for the decisions as the members of the tribe often got into arguments relating to the dispute.
The legal system of Australia relies on two sources firstly, on common law and secondly, on parliamentary law. There are three essential organs of the government that work separately; those are the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The legislature makes laws, the executive implements laws while the judiciary explains the same and justifies the same. The three organs of the government was not part of the Australian legal tribe system. The doctrine of separation of powers is required so that the branches act in an independent manner and separately. The powers of each of the wings of the government should not overlap with one another as this would create further ambiguity.
The decisions announced by the Court are not just binding upon the parties to the dispute but also on the lower courts. The lower courts follow the decisions that have been made by the superior court as precedents at the time of adjudicating cases containing similar facts and issues. The decisions are not at all biased and they are impartial in nature and the judges also provide logical reasoning for the same. Additionally, the legal system that is followed by the tribe is very different from the legal system otherwise followed as a person who is alleged to have committed any crime shall be punished if all the evidences are properly furnished by the opposite party.
However, one of the major differences between the legal systems of Australia as compared to the legal system of the tribe is the applicability of the binding nature of the rules. The tribe did not have the three wings of the government and neither their rules were binding in nature.
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013]
The issue in this case study is whether Google made any offence under sec- 52 of the Trade Practice Act for providing any misleading or deceptive conduct.
In this case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) appeal to the court that Google made an offence of misleading and deceptive conduct. They have alleged Google under the sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act the offence misleading and deceptive conduct. The High Court established a judgment that they did not liable for any misleading or deceptive conduct. The consumers who are using such advertisement of deceptive conduct are prohibits in sec-18 of Consumer law. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 [52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth)] and Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd are some important cases where this section applied.
Under the sec 18 of Australian Consumer Law, this was before known as sec-52 of the Trade Practice Act 1974 is, restrain the conduct of misleading or deceptive facts. Sometimes the facts that are related to advertisement, cause harm to the consumers. The misleading and deceptive conduct means publishing any kind of unlawful services. Any advertisement company should not provide any misleading or deceptive conducts through the advertisement that could be the reason of negative response from consumer.
According the case study, the ACCC complaint against the Google for involving with prohibition of deceptive conduct. The section applied into some sponsored links searches. The ACCC stated the breach of deceptive conduct where Google involved.
The ACCC alleged because they thought Google was liable for the misleading or deceptive conduct where the programming software allowed adviser include the name of the sponsored link of the Advertiser Company, which was misleading or deceptive conduct. However, Google has no liability for the act because it has not allowed or not involve in misleading representations of the advertisers. In the court, Judge Nicolas J published that Google was not involved and liable for any such incidents. Google was not even liable for disputes in this matter.
As per the section 52 of the Practice Act, the ACCC gave the allegation upon Google. Heyne J established the facts that Google is an individual company who only published the the searches what users typed in the website. They never recognize what sponsored link produced through any advertisement. Therefore, Google not have any kind liabilities about sponsored links. He also described how the Federal Court made errors when they published the previous judgment. Google is a search engine, which supply information through websites. They do not work with any misleading or deceptive conduct. The advisor is the one who provide such advertisement through the websites. If those programs supply any of the deceptive conducts through the Google websites, then the Google is not found any guilty in those situations. However, the High Court found errors in appeal of the ACCC. Therefore, by every judgment it was stated that Google is not liable for any offence. The Butcher vs. Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ldt is one of the similar cases of the sec-52 of Trade Practice act.
References:
Aroney, Nicholas, et al. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia: History, Principle and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Cheibub, Jose Antonio, Zachary Elkins, and Tom Ginsburg. “Beyond presidentialism and parliamentarism.” British Journal of Political Science 44.03 (2014): 515-544.
Douglas, James, Eleanor Atkins, and Hamish Clift. “Judicial Rulings with Prospective Effect in Australia.” Comparing the Prospective Effect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 349-358.
Frías-Aceituno, José V., Lázaro Rodríguez-Ariza, and Isabel M. García-Sánchez. “Is integrated reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 44 (2013): 45-55.
Ganghof, Steffen. “Is the ‘Constitution of Equality’Parliamentary, Presidential or Hybrid?.” Political Studies 63.4 (2015): 814-829.
Gardbaum, Stephen. “Separation of powers and the growth of judicial review in established democracies (or why has the model of legislative supremacy mostly been withdrawn from sale?).” American Journal of Comparative Law 62.3 (2014): 613-639.
Gibbons, John. Language and the Law. Routledge, 2014.
Hoyer, Wayne D., Deborah J. MacInnis, and Rik Pieters. Consumer behavior. Nelson Education, 2016.
John, Rani, and Andrew Willekes. “Consumer law: Deceptive advertising: Is it a question of audience?.” Law Society Journal: the official journal of the Law Society of New South Wales 52.3 (2014): 42.
Kariyawasam, Kanchana, and Shaun Wigley. “Online shopping, misleading advertising and consumer protection.” Information & Communications Technology Law (2017): 1-17.
Kenyon, Tony. “President’s page: Free speech, independence and separation of powers.” Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 138 (2017): 3.
Leonard, Jessica. “Aboriginal justice: The challenges of FASD and implications for the legal system.” Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia) 38.1 (2016): 38.
Song, Sylvia, and Matthew Stewart. “Online trade mark infringement and keyword advertising.” Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand. No. 105. Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc, 2016.
Stokes, Michael. “The role of negative implications in the interpretation of commonwealth legislative powers.” Melb. UL Rev. 39 (2015): 175.
Vines, Prue. Law and Justice in Australia: Foundations of the legal system. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Ward, Peter C. Federal trade commission: Law, practice and procedure. Law Journal Press, 2016.
Watts, Ronald L. “Comparing Federal Political Systems.” Understanding Federalism and Federation (2015): 11.
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