Can you please read the case below and help me to answer those two questions the following:

1. What is the Issue & Rule & Application & Conclusion for Ford Case Under Remedies and Penalties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

2. What is the Issue & Rule & Application & Conclusion for Harvey Case Under Remedies and Penalties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Bishop Pty Ltd is a company that manufactures bicycles for export to the European market. Its directors are Ford, Harvey and Suzuki. Last year, Ford was sent by the company to survey the market in Europe. He managed to secure five contracts worth $1.5 million per year for the next three years. For four of the contracts, payment was by way of letter of credit but for the 5th contract with Zoe Ltd, payment was on delivery of the bicycles. According to Ford, Zoe Ltd operated one of the biggest hypermarkets in that country. The company needed to expand its factory. Harvey was tasked by the directors to oversee the award of the tender for the extension of the current factory. Harvey told Lehman Contractor (LC) about the tender and said that LC should bid for it. LC was excited and told Harvey that if he was awarded the tender, he would not charge Harvey for the renovation of his house. Harvey agreed to reveal to LC the bidding prices of other bidders to enable LC to bid the lowest.

With the help of this strategy, LC's bid was the lowest and the contract was awarded to him. The extension to the factory was duly completed. The company manufactured the bicycles and shipped them to the customers in Europe. Unfortunately, Zoe Ltd was actually a sham company. The bicycles were not paid for and Bishop lost $200,000. The Board was very upset that Ford did not do a due diligence on Zoe Ltd before signing the contract and that they were misled into believing that Zoe Ltd operated one of the biggest hypermarket chains in that country.