Business Law for Human Egg Production Act- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theBusiness Law for Human Egg Production Act. Answer: Legislative powers have been provided to the commonwealth by the constitution under section 51. However the law which is enacted by the commonwealth parliament has to be in accordance to the provisions of the constitution. Section 51 consists of 39 subsections which specifically provide the areas in which the parliament has the power to make laws. Each of the subsection is described as a head of power. In the given situation the commonwealth has been provided the power to enact the Human Egg Production Act 2016 (Cth) under section 51 (xxix) which is in relation to external affairs as the provisions have been provided by an international treaty. The right for the purpose of legislating with respect to external affairs has been provided to the commonwealth parliament of Australia through section 51 (xxix) of the Australian constitution. In Australia treaty obligations are itself not recognized as a source of law until and unless legislation has been passed which expressly incorporates the treaty into the Australian law (Barnett 2017). A treaty has no power to create a right in the Australian law. The concept in relation to the effect of treaty had been discussed in the case of Richardson v Forestry Commission (1988) 164 CLR 261 and Victoria v Commonwealth (Industrial Relations Act Case) (1996) 187 CLR 416.In the given situation a treaty has been entered upon by Australia which is in relation to the humanly treatment of chicken. The provisions of the treaty has been enacted by the commonwealth parliament in form of the Human Egg Production Act 2016 (Cth). However the Act only provides the requirement of space of 3.8m2 instead of 4m2 as provided by the treaty. On the other hand Egg producers Act 2017 provides for a space of 4m2. Thus according to the above discussed principle a treaty has no legal effect in Australia. The legal effect is only created when the treaty has been enacted in form of legislation. In the given situation the applicable law in Australia in relation to human treatment of chickens would be derived from the federal legislation and not any treaty. Angus who provides a space of only 3.8m2 to the chickens and labels the eggs as free range egg is not violating the provisions of the HEPA (Cth) but the provisions of the EPA (SA). Therefore as discussed above the provisions of HEPA would prevail and Angus can continue to sell. According to the facts provides above the business model which has to be setup by Agnes and James is known as a partnership. In South Australia partnership is governed by the Partnership Act 1891. A partnership is a business which is carried out by two or more person for making profits. If both James and Agnes want to operate the business in the name of sparkies they need to get the business name registered. This is because the business name is not the same as the name of its owners (Milman 2013). In a partnership an all partners are the agents of each other. Sometimes the partnership agreement may expressly provide limitations as to the powers of the partners. However the partners may be liable to the actions of each other even if they have not acted in accordance the partnership agreement. This happens when the third party had no idea that the partnership agreements do not provide authority to a partner (Koh 2015). In the given situation where James has purchased a scissor lift exceeding the power provided to him by the agreement. However the cunnings hardware store was not aware of such power restriction upon James. Thus the business is bound to the contract with the hardware store. When a partnership business is entered upon all the partners are liable to the acts of each other even in case of negligence committed by a single partner (Allen and Kraakman 2016). In the given situation where negligence has been committed by Agnes in the course of employment the whole firm would be liable for her actions. Thus James cannot rely upon the fact that faulty installation was not his mistake and has to jointly pay the amount demanded by the insurance company. In the same way as discussed above joint liability of partners are also applicable in relation to the debts incurred by the business. Unlike a company a partnership does not have the feature of limited liability and therefore the partners can be held personally liable for the debts of the business. In the given situation where it has been provided that debts have been incurred by the business cannot be met by the money which is held by the business the partners have the liability of paying such debts for their personal assets. The payment would be done in relation to the profit sharing ratio of the partners. References Allen, W.T. and Kraakman, R., 2016.Commentaries and cases on the law of business organization. Wolters Kluwer law business. Australian Commonwealth Constitution Barnett, H., 2017.Constitutional and administrative law. Taylor Francis. Koh, P., 2015. Agency and partnership law. SAL Ann. Rev., p.87. Milman, D., 2013. Partnership law: an overview in 2013.Sweet and Maxwell's Company Law Newsletter, (339), pp.1-4. Partnership Act 1891