MBA5002 Managing Administration and Control Report 3 Sample

MBA5002 Managing Administration and Control. Ass 3

Management – Report

Introduction

This is the group assignment of 1500 words. Students will select a country from the AMEA region to compare with Australia. The group will document a matrix format corresponding to the law's salient aspects of contracts, employment, intellectual property, and agency. The group will critically analyze the findings to develop conclusions regarding the impacts on establishing relationships and doing business with the comparator country. The group will also form a view regarding the relative favorability of each aspect of the legal framework for the organization. The groups will role play presenting the written report to the Board of Directors of the viability of business proposal in that country.

Task

You will be assessed as follows:

a. Research information: Appropriate sources are consulted, enough sources are consulted, and Sources are referenced.

b. Organize information: Appropriate headings, write clearly and concisely using an integrated structure, arguments, and conclusions that match the purpose.

c. Explain the issues in more depth and comment on the implications of the problems.

d. Write clearly and concisely: Arguments are easy to

Submission Instructions

For all significant assessments, both formative and summative, the preferred layout is in 12-point Calibri, with 1.5 line spacing, 2.5 centimeters left-hand margins, and Bold headings. All assessments must be submitted with a completed and signed cover sheet. Whenever you use the ideas and arguments of other writers, you must refer to the writers and their work. By acknowledging the work of others, you avoid plagiarism. All submissions are to be submitted through Turnitin. Drop-boxes linked to Turnitin will be set up in Moodle. Assessments not submitted through these drop-boxes will not be considered. Submissions must be made by the review due date. The 
Turnitin similarity score will be used to determineany plagiarism in your submitted assessment. Turnitin will check conference websites, Journal articles, online resources, and your peer’s submissions for plagiarism.

You can see your Turnitin similarity score when you submit your assessments to the appropriate drop-box. If your similarity score is of concern, you can change your evaluation and resubmit. However, re-submission is only allowed before the submission due date and time. You cannot make re- submissions after the due date and time have elapsed. Thus, plan early and submit early to take advantage of this feature. You can create multiple submissions, but please remember the teaching team will only grade your last request, and the date and time you sub- mitted will be taken from that.

Solution

Introduction

An in-depth knowledge of the legal frameworks regulating employment, contracts, intellectual property, and agency is essential in the dynamic world of global commerce. This research examines the legal systems of Australia and India via a comparative lens. As per the MBA Assignment Expert Overview, Understanding the complex legal networks that influence business opportunities is our main goal as we examine the subtle differences between these two countries. Australia, a pillar of the Asia-Pacific, and India, a vibrant powerhouse in the AMEA, both have their own unique legal environments (Kuah & Wang 2020). Through an exploration of the domains of contracts, employment, intellectual property, and agency, our goal is to reveal the nuances and complexity that companies face in these areas.  The subsequent critical examination will reveal possible synergies in addition to highlighting the differences, offering insightful information to companies considering commercial endeavors in these varied areas. This report will help in making informed decisions on the viability of business proposals in India and Australia.

Country Selection

India and Australia are the two countries in the forefront of this study in the search for a comprehensive comparison. India, a dominant country in the AMEA area, has a thriving economy and a diverse cultural heritage. Australia is a major force in the Asia-Pacific region and is known for its stability and inventiveness (Chawla & Kumar 2022). By choosing these disparate countries, this research seeks to clarify the nuances of their legal systems, providing a comprehensive grasp of the opportunities and difficulties associated with doing business internationally.

Matrix Format Overview

A. Contracts

India: The Indian Contract Act of 1872 is the main piece of legislation governing contract law in India. A thorough framework for the creation, performance, and enforcement of contracts is provided by this statute. The acknowledgment of oral contracts and the focus on fairness and good faith (Sections 23 and 24) are noteworthy aspects (Jaiswal 2022). The Act provides a sophisticated knowledge of contractual interactions by classifying contracts into a number of categories, including quasi-contracts and contingent contracts. The "Specific Relief Act," a new amendment introduced in 2018, improves the remedies available for contract breaches.

Australia: With some government actions, the principles of common law mostly dominate contract law in Australia. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (formerly known as the Trade Practises Act 1974) is the main piece of law; Part IV of the Act addresses anti-competitive behaviour. Furthermore, a key component in regulating consumer contracts is the Australian Consumer Law, which is a schedule to the Competition and Consumer Act (Gvozdenovic 2020). The legal framework governing contracts in Australia is shaped by statutory requirements and the common law concepts of offer, acceptance, and consideration.

B. Employment

India: The Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947 and the Shops and Establishments Act of the individual states primarily regulate the law of employment in India. The abundance of labour rules and regulations reflects the sophistication of the labour marketplace. Establishing standing orders with terms of employment is required under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act of 1946 (Karak & Basu 2020). New labour law changes, including the 2020 unification of labour regulations, are intended to simplify and expedite the regulatory structure in order to create an atmosphere that is more conducive to business.

Australia: Australian employment laws include legislative requirements and common law ideas. A key piece of legislation that governs work relationships and covers things like minimum employment standards, termination, and industrial activities is the Fair Work Act of 2009 (Adams et al 2019). This Act's National Employment Standards (NES) define fundamental working conditions with a focus on employee protection. Australia strikes a balance between employee protection and corporate flexibility when it comes to employment legislation.

C. Intellectual Property

India: Many laws regulate the protection of intellectual property rights in India; the main ones are the Copyright Act of 1957, the Trademarks Act of 1999, and the Patents Act of 1970. In 2005, India's patent legislation was significantly modified to bring it into compliance with global norms (Bently et al 2022). While the Copyright Act protects literary, artistic, and musical works, the Trademarks Act includes procedures for registration and protection. India's changing intellectual property environment shows a proactive stance towards international norms.

Australia: Legislation such as the Copyright Act of 1968, the Trade Marks Act of 1995, and the Patents Act of 1990 formed Australia's intellectual property framework. In order to strengthen the patentability standards and promote a strong intellectual property system, the creative "Raising the Bar" changes were implemented in 2012 (Rimmer 2019). Distinctive signs are protected by the Trade Marks Act, and the Copyright Act has its own elements despite some parallels to India's.

D. Agency

India: In India, agency ties are regulated under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Fiduciary duties are highlighted in the Act's definition of principals' and agents' rights and obligations. Notably, Section 183 of the Act requires an agent to act within the bounds of the power granted to them; any violation from this requirement may result in legal ramifications (Dash et al 2022). The regulations concerning concealed agency and the termination of agency add another layer of complexity to the principal-agent connection.

Australia: In Australia, contract law serves as the primary source of regulation for agency interactions, with normal law concepts serving as the foundation. Fiduciary obligations, which require the agent to operate in the principal's finest interest, define the principal-agent relationship (Stone & Devenney 2022). The agent's authority may be explicitly granted or inferred from their actions; the law recognises both types of authority. Australia's view of agency relationships is shaped by pertinent case law, including Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency.

Critical Analysis

A. Contracts

India: With its foundation in the Indian Contract Act of 1872, India's legal system for contracts places a strong emphasis on adaptability and justice. A distinctive aspect of commercial interactions is the acceptance of oral contracts and the focus on good faith. However, the drawn-out judicial processes provide difficulties that affect the prompt resolution of conflicts. Although the 2018 modification is a move in the right direction towards modernization, its actual application calls for caution (Pandey & Raghunath 2020). All things considered, Indian contract law strikes a balance between tradition and modernity, requiring a calculated approach to successful economic business.

Australia: Although it offers clarity, Australia's dependence on common law principles enhanced by statutory initiatives necessitates monitoring changing court interpretations. The Competition and Consumer Act introduces another level of complication by emphasising anti-competitive behaviour (Pargendler 2018). Although common law theories offer flexibility, they also need a thorough comprehension of changing jurisprudence. Although the legal environment supports clear-cut commercial agreements, it need constant legal knowledge to successfully negotiate possible hazards.

B. Employment

India: Despite covering a wide range of employment situations, India's complex labour laws can place a burden on firms in terms of compliance. Although the recent unification of labour rules is a start in the right direction, problems still exist. Proactive human resource initiatives are required due to the frequent strikes and collective bargaining that characterise the industrial relations climate (Deakin, Marshall & Pinto 2020). It's still difficult to strike a balance between the necessity for flexibility and the defence of employee rights; clever management techniques are needed.

Australia: The Fair Work Act in Australia achieves a great compromise between employee protection and business liberty. The NES promotes a positive work environment by guaranteeing a minimum standard of fair working standards. An extra degree of complication is introduced by the decentralised method, in which specific employment concerns are regulated by states and territories (Hardy 2018). Even if the system encourages equity, companies must understand the nuances of state-specific laws to guarantee compliance.

C. Intellectual Property

India: India's intellectual property regime has evolved, aligning with global standards. However, challenges persist in the enforcement of rights, leading to concerns about the protection of innovations. The Patents Act's 2005 amendments, while enhancing patentability criteria, require businesses to navigate a complex landscape (Maurya 2021). Vigilance is crucial to protect trademarks, and the Copyright Act's provisions necessitate a strategic approach to safeguard creative works.

Australia: Australia's "Raising the Bar" amendments signify a proactive stance towards intellectual property protection. The clear delineation of patentability criteria enhances legal certainty. The Trade Marks Act ensures robust protection for distinctive signs, promoting innovation (Stanford 2018). The Copyright Act, while comparable to India's, reflects nuanced differences, requiring a tailored approach for businesses engaged in creative endeavors.

D. Agency

India: Fiduciary obligations are emphasised in India's agency laws, which have their roots in the Indian Contract Act. Principal interests are protected by the necessity that agents behave within the bounds of their power. The absence of a particular regulation governing agency relationships presents difficulties and forces the use of common law concepts (Subramanian & Felman 2019). Even if it's regulated, agency terminations need to be clear to prevent misunderstandings.

Australia: Although flexible, Australia's common law approach to agency relationships necessitates a careful study of prior judicial decisions. Principal interests are better protected when fiduciary obligations and the acknowledgment of real and apparent power are acknowledged (Wright & Clibborn 2020). But the lack of a clear legislation might cause confusion and force companies to depend on accepted legal doctrines.

Overall Implications

The analytical study presents a comprehensive picture of the legal systems of Australia and India, highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages. Companies considering international business partnerships must carefully consider these complexities and understand the necessity for flexible solutions that take into account the unique legal requirements of each country. The subsequent parts offer a comprehensive perspective for the Board of Directors to evaluate the feasibility of business ideas in Australia and India by delving deeper into the relative merits of various legal factors.

Relative Favorability and Conclusion

It is clear from comparing the different merits of the legal systems in Australia and India that every country has its own chances and difficulties. With its deeply ingrained legal systems, India provides contract flexibility and a changing environment for intellectual property. But there are still difficulties in understanding complicated labour regulations. Australia has strong intellectual property protection together with contract clarity because to its common law foundation. However, it is crucial to have a sophisticated grasp of how judicial interpretations are changing.

To sum up, the success of business ideas in Australia and India depends on having a thorough awareness of the legal nuances specific to each country. Australia has a proactive legal system that fosters innovation, especially in the area of intellectual property. India provides a broad market with opportunities for strategic collaborations, despite its challenges. Companies need to adjust their strategies to take advantage of the advantages and lessen the disadvantages presented by the legal environment in each jurisdiction. Equipped with this thorough study, the Board of Directors may make well-informed choices, understanding that the key to success is matching corporate plans to the legal framework of the selected market.

References

Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2022). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/download/55913341/2017.BAR-REVIEW.LECTURE.7.9.2017_1_1.pdf 

Chawla, N., & Kumar, B. (2022). E-commerce and consumer protection in India: the emerging trend. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(2), 581-604. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-021-04884-3 

Dash, B., Ansari, M. F., Sharma, P., & Swayamsiddha, S. (2022). Future Ready Banking With Smart Contracts-CBDC and Impact on the Indian Economy. International Journal of Network Security and Its Applications, 14(5). https://www.academia.edu/download/97114361/ijnsa.2022.pdf  

Deakin, S. F., Marshall, S., & Pinto, S. (2020). Labour laws, informality, and development: comparing India and China. Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/cbrwp518.pdf

Gvozdenovic, M. (2020). Natural meaning equals natural monopoly: New declaration criteria for access to services under the'Competition and Consumer Act'. AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW, 48(3), 286-294. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/agispt.20200814035000 

Jaiswal, S. (2022). E-contract its validity and legal provisions in India. http://210.212.169.38/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/10081/2.%20E-%20contract%2C%20its%20validity%20and%20legal%20provisions%20in%20India%20Sapana%20Jaiswal.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 

Karak, A., & Basu, D. (2020). Profitability or industrial relations: what explains manufacturing performance across Indian states?. Development and Change, 51(3), 817-842. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/174410/1/2017-01.pdf 

Kuah, A. T., & Wang, P. (2020). Circular economy and consumer acceptance: An exploratory study in East and Southeast Asia. J. Clean. Prod, 247, 119097. https://www.academia.edu/download/90388968/j.jclepro.2019.11909720220829-1-1cwbfew.pdf 

Maurya, B. R. (2021). A review on intellectual property in India. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research, 11(11), 128-134. https://saarj.com/wp-content/uploads/paper/SAJMMR/2021/FULL-PDF/SAJMMR-NOVEMBER-2021/11.20,%20B.%20R.%20Maurya.pdf 

Pandey, D., & Raghunath, H. (2020). Stationing Smart Contract as a'Contract': A Case for Interpretative Reform of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. NUJS L. Rev., 13, 731. http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/13.4-Pandey-Raghunath.pdf 

Pargendler, M. (2018). The role of the state in contract law: The common-civil law divide. Yale J. Int'l L., 43, 143. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/6723/MarianaPargendlerTheRoleo.pdf?sequence=2

Rimmer, M. (2019). Australia's Stop Online Piracy Act: Copyright law, site-blocking, and search filters in an age of internet censorship. Canberra Law Review, 16(1), 10-63. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/131099/1/131099.pdf

Stanford, J. (2018). Raising the bar. https://futurework.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/Raising_the_Bar_Formatted_Final_0.pdf 

Stone, R., & Devenney, J. (2022). The modern law of contract. Routledge.  https://ds.amu.edu.et/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4823/503047.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 

Subramanian, A., & Felman, J. (2019). India's great slowdown: what happened? What's the way out?. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11366&context=ypfs-documents 

Wright, C. F., & Clibborn, S. (2020). A guest-worker state? The declining power and agency of migrant labour in Australia. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 31(1), 34-58. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1035304619897670