Scenario 1

Scenario 1

Arvin, a car mechanic (and owner of Fixacar Co. Ltd), is 50-years old and suffers from mild dementia. Arvin's business has not been going well recently because of his illness. He and his wife, Angela, work casually (Arvin as a mechanic and Angela as an artist), and jointly own two mortgaged properties (one in which they live) in the inner city. One day, Arvin receives a call from Tony, a close family friend. Tony works as a property and finance consultant, and Arvin has relied on Tony's advice ever since he was diagnosed with dementia. Tony tells Arvin that now is a good time to invest in rural property, and that it would help Arvin pay off the mortgage of his two houses quicker. Arvin has been quite anxious about his loan repayments, so he asks Tony how to go about acquiring a rural property. Tony explains to Arvin that he can secure a loan at a very good interest rate if Arvin is willing to put up his two properties to secure the loan, and to guarantee the loan. Tony advised Arvin, that Arvin could use his mechanic business to secure the loan. The loan documentation included a certificate of independent legal advice to be signed by a lawyer and a certificate of independent financial advice to be signed by an accountant. It was through Tony's associated business connections that these certificates were obtained and signed. Arvin signs the loan agreement with JohnnyBank Ltd. (through Tony). After six months, Arvin is unable to pay the repayments for the loan. JohnnyBank wish now to secure their rights over the mortgaged properties. Arvin comes to you for advice. You recall reading a High Court case in the recent past (last few years) that sounds similar to Arvin's situation.

Advise Arvin.

Please use case law to support your answer.

Scenario 2

Adventure Cruises Pty Ltd. (AC), is a subsidiary of and wholly owned by Festival Group, a US based travel and cruise company. In August, 2021, one of AC's cruise ships, the 'Mermaid of the Seas', travelled from Hawaii to Melbourne, Australia, via New Zealand. Upon arrival in Melbourne, the ship was forced to keep its passengers on board, after a sudden outbreak of COVID-19, and subsequent lockdown by the Victorian government. Unfortunately, the virus had already started to spread on the ship, due to several passengers being infected prior to embarkation. The forced disembarkation restriction, plus the spread onboard lead to several elderly passengers on the Mermaid of the Seas falling ill, with limited medical support.

Miss Jolly Good-Show, a US citizen from Wisconsin, was one of the passengers infected with COVID-19 whilst on the Mermaid of the Seas. She and several other passengers had also fallen ill due to food poisoning on the journey from New Zealand because of contaminated shellfish (partly from careless handling and storage) from the buffet. Further to this, many, including Miss Good-Show, were not able to participate in any tourist activities in Australia and were forced to either isolate or fly back to the US once released. Miss Good-Show and several other fellow US passengers wish to bring a class action in damages for their loss against AC and Festival under the Australian Consumer Law. Both AC and Festival claim that the contracts were formed in the US, and therefore only US law can apply. Also, AC and Festival claim that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in favour of the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and a 'class action waiver clause' in the contract prevent Miss Good-Show and her fellow claimants from making any claims in an Australian court or under the Australian Consumer Law. Festival also refer to a term in the cruise contract providing: 'Festival Group and all its subsidiaries will not be subject to the consumer law guarantees of states outside of the USA'.

Advise Miss Good-Show and her fellow passengers whether those clauses will be considered fair under the Australian Consumer Law and whether they may have a claim under the Australian Consumer Law's 'consumer guarantees'.

Please use case law and/or statute to support your answer.

Scenario 3

Marcy is a senior manager at Soulful Sisters Ltd. (SS), a retail outlet that designs and sells clothes to younger women and teenage girls. SS's factory is located in Cambodia. When recently visiting the factory on outskirts of Phnom Penh, Marcy hears about protests occurring outside the factory. Local rights activists were protesting against environmental damage to the local waterways and exploitation of children for labour. Marcy had read about this type of thing in the news, but did not expect that her own company was involved in such practises. After investigating the situation further, she finds that the factory is using old technology in its processes which is harming the environment. It is also apparent that very young girls (under 16) are working in the factory. She is conflicted about the situation because she understands that SS's profit margins are dependent on the low cost of production (the reason the factory was located in Cambodia). She calls her direct manager about the situation, who tells Marcy to just ignore it, and that 'it is just the way things are'. Marcy is not comfortable with this approach.

Imagine that you work for Global Compact Network Australia, and are presenting to small to medium size businesses (SMCs) in Melbourne. Drawing on your experience and understanding of the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, how would you advise Marcy about her situation. More specifically, which Principles would you advise Marcy pay specific attention to, when Marcy asks you how she should approach the situation with their factory.

Please cite specific aspects of the principles in your advice.

Also please provide references and include harvard style citations thanks