The issue of the present question is to discuss the Feasibility of launching a fishery company in order to collect more Scallops for enhancing the business productivity of the fishermen. In the given case study the rules and the regulations for the collection of Scallop need to be discussed in order to enhance the business productivity of the economy.
In the present case study, it has been given that the Australian government has formed some rules and regulation for the collection of the Scallop because the concerned species is getting extinct due to excessive demand among the fishing market of Australia. In addition to this new Government of Australia has made certain laws in order to regenerate the species. On the other hand, in the case study, it has been mentioned that the Scallop fishing and marketing legislation has started a quota system for the collection of the fishes. According to the law of the fishing and the marketing board, a fisherman is permitted to collect a maximum of 50 tons of Scallop in a calendar year. It has also been mentioned that if anyone needs more than 50 tons of Scallop then the quota system will be in used by the fishing and the marketing officials.
According to the Scallop fishing legislation, a fisherman needs to have a fishing license in order to get permission for the collection of scallop for business purpose. In addition to this, the individual needs to have a license in order to lease the location used for the cultivation of the Scallops. In the year 2011, a catch share agreement was launched in which it was stated that a boat can catch a maximum of 30 percent scallop per day in order to prevent the scallop from getting extinct (Tricker et al. 2015).
The present question deals with the rules and the regulation for the collection of the scallop by the fisherman. In the given case study it has been mentioned that the government of Australia has set up certain rules and regulation for the collection of the Scallop because the species is nearly getting extinct. On the other hand in the case study, it has also been that the government of Australia has launched this rule because of lack of breeding location. In the given case study it has also been mentioned that an individual can collect maximum 50 tons of Scallop. Contrary to this if the individual collects more than that amount of Scallop then a fine of $100,000 will be imposed on him. In addition to this, an individual needs to have a license while collecting the scallop. According to the Australian Body of scallop collection and marketing an individual can be provided with a limited number of license. According to the fishery management act of 1991, the amount of collecting the Scalp needs to be limited in order to protect the biodiversity. According to the Fishery act of 1991 fishing license can be only given to the authorised person and it cannot be transferred to any other individual. In the case between Ada v Lin Wen Beau, The defendants were provided with a licence by the Australian High court for the collection of Scallop but the concerned company failed to abide by the regulations of the license, therefore, they were termed guilty. On the other hand, the defendants were accused by the court for not following the provisions of tied fishery act of 1992. Thus, the high court of Australia has imposed a certain amount of fine from the defendants (Ada v Lin Wen Beau case, 2010)
Thus, in the present question it can be said that the advice given by the daughter of Bob is not feasible because according to the fishing law of Australia only one license is provided in the name of the company and the limit of Scallop collection remains constant for all the members of the company that is 50 gallons in a calendar year. On the other hand, it has been seen in the given portion if the individual does not follow the provisions of the fishing law than he can be fined or imprisonment can also take place.
The present case deals with the effect of loud music on the people. In addition to this, the present question deals with the liabilities of New Nirvana Ltd on behalf of the sound pollution caused by Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd at Sydney.
The law related to the issue
In the given question it has been said that Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd is responsible for creating sound pollution in a concert of Sydney for which many of the audiences are suffering from permanent hear loss. In addition to this in the case study, it has also been mentioned that the audiences were unable to blame the concerned organisation because it was a subsidiary company and didn't have any kind of insurance in order to compensate the audiences. According to the environmental operation of 1997, the level of sound should not reach above 60 decibels because it may cause permanent deafness, especially among the old people. On the other hand in the case study, it has been mentioned that the excessive level of the sound has caused permanent hear loss to five audiences. In the law, it has been also mentioned that if the individual or organisation is liable to create sound pollution then a certain amount of money can be fined from the person found guilty. According to the Corporation Act of 2001 if all the individuals are running a business then all of them are responsible for any kind of disputes created by any member of the organisation. On the other hand according to this law if their subsidiary company get engaged in a kind of Faulty work then the parent company cannot be held responsible. Thus, in the given case study it can be said that New Nirvana Ltd cannot be held responsible for the misdeed created by Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd (Stoll et al. 2015).
In the given case study it has been seen that Nuclear Blast Sound was responsible for causing permanent hear loss to the five audiences at Sydney. On the other hand, it has been seen that according to the corporation law of 2001 the parent company of the holding company cannot be responsible for any kind of miss dead caused by the subsidiary company. In addition to this it can according to the corporation law of Australia if the company borrows any kind of financial help from the financial institute then the parent company is not responsible for clearing the debt of the organisation. Even the parent organisation is not liable to pay any kind of fine on behalf of the subsidiary company. On the other hand, the parent company cannot be held responsible for any kind of violation by the subsidiary company (Pearson et al. 2017). In the case of Salomon v. Salomon the High of Australia has relieved the organisation from paying the debt created by the subsidiary company (Salomon v. Salomon, 2015)
Thus, in the given question it has been seen that the parent company cannot be held responsible for the deeds subsidiary company because according to the Corporation Act of 2001 the subsidiary company and the parent company are two individual identities and can function independently. On the other hand, it has been seen that both the entities are not liable for each other's deed in the market in which they carry out their function. So, in this case, it can be said New Nirvana Ltd cannot be held responsible by the audiences for the misdeed created by Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd.
In the present question, the issue is whether the concerned organisation can replace Don by any other employee as the solicitation. In the present case study, it has been mentioned that in a meeting it was fixed by all the members of the organisation that Don will be the solicitor of the organisation for a lifetime (Newport et al. 2014).
In the case study, it has been mentioned that an organisation was launched by Don, Simon and Michel. In addition to this, it has also been seen that in the meeting of the organisation it has been decided that Don will be considered as the solicitor of the company for a lifetime as well as he will be the lawyer of the organisation. In addition to this, it was also mentioned that if any kind of disputes takes place between the organisation and its employees then initially they need to report to Don. Later the management of the organisation could not stick to the decision as they have appointed some other solicitation. As a result, Don brings legal allegations against the organisation. Thus, In this case, the provisions of the Australian Contract law needs to be discussed. According to the Australian Contract Law, any contact between two parties can be modified according to the need of the organisation. On the other hand in the contract law, it has also been mentioned that if the organisation is not satisfied with the performance of the employees then also they can modify the contract that has been created by the organisation. In the contract law, it has also been mentioned that if the company requires they can end the contract before the time relapse. In addition to this, it has also been mentioned that the management organisation can dismiss the contract if they required doing so. According to the view of Ikin (2015), the consumer and competition act 2010 any organisation can change the provisions of the contract law.
In the case study, it has been mentioned that Don has brought legal obligations against the organisational since they have not followed the provisions of the contract law that was signed between them. Contrary to this Don cannot bring any kind of legal charges against the organisation because according to the Australian contract law the organisation can change the provisions of law according to their need. In addition to this, it was also mentioned that if the organization is not satisfied with the performance of the employees then also they can change the provisions of the contract that was created between the employees and the management (Hesp et al. 2016). In the given case of TAYLOR V. JOHNSON, it was seen that Johnson was unaware of the violation of the contact between the management and Taylor. In addition to this, the high court of Australia has relieved Johnson as he was unaware of his guilt ( TAYLOR V. JOHNSON, 2015).
Thus, from the provisions of the Contract law, it can be said that if the company changes the provisions of the contract that has been set by the organisation can be changed according to the need of the organisation. So, in the given case study it has been seen that Don cannot bring any kind of allegation against the organisation as because the management has the full right to change the provisions of the law according to the needs of the organisation (Dowling et al. 2016).
Dowling, N. A., Dichmont, C. M., Haddon, M., Smith, D. C., Smith, A. D. M., & Sainsbury, K. (2015). Guidelines for developing formal harvest strategies for data-poor species and fisheries. Fisheries Research, 171, 130-140.
Hesp, S., Caputi, N., Penn, J., Kangas, M., Sporer, E., Hogan, B., & Clement, J. (2017). Improving fleet efficiency to maximise economic yield in a Western Australian prawn fishery. Marine Policy, 86, 82-93.
Ikin, K., Le Roux, D. S., Rayner, L., Villaseñor, N. R., Eyles, K., Gibbons, P., ... & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2015). Key lessons for achieving biodiversity?sensitive cities and towns. Ecological management & restoration, 16(3), 206-214.
Newport, J., Shorthouse, D. J., & Manning, A. D. (2014). The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: Implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecological management & restoration, 15(3), 204-214.
Pearson, G. (2017). Current Issues for Consumer Protection Law in Australia. In Consumer Law and Socioeconomic Development pp. 199-200.
Stoll, J. S., Beitl, C. M., & Wilson, J. A. (2016). How access to Maine? s fisheries has changed over a quarter century: The cumulative effects of licensing on resilience. Global Environmental Change, 37, 79-91.
Tricker, R. B., & Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. USA: Oxford University Press
Ada v Lin Wen Beau (2010), Report of the case has been determined at the high court of Australia, accessed on 20.1.2018, from: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/1996/111.html
TAYLOR V. JOHNSON ( 2015), report of the court has been determined in the high court Australia, Accessed on 20.0.2018, From: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1985/3.pdf