Impact and Compliance of Business Laws of Australia

Question: Discuss the impact and compliance of major business laws of Australia. Answer: Introduction This case deals with a change in name of the business and thereafter discusses the impact and compliance of major business laws of Australia. It considers the scope of compliance in a business that associates with change in name. Compliances ensure first identifying of laws and also helps in determining the risk that might be faced by the business if compliance is not done. Relevant Facts The family is already engaged in a business of seafood restraint. However, now the family wishes to change the name of the restaurant and call it the Great Catch! For executing the said change, there shall be various problems encountered by the family, which can be sorted by complying with relevant laws and statutes within the country. Problem The following are the problems in the present case: Identification of laws that apply to the business Regulators who have jurisdiction in specific areas The risks the business faces Legal issues that might arise Legal Issues The following are the legal issues in the present case: Whether the provisions of Property Law Act, 1969 apply to the present case in deciding compliance of the business. Whether the change of name shall bring additional compliances in respect to Competition and Consumer Act, 2010. Whether the new name will be required to be protected under Intellectual Property Laws. Whether the business will be required to comply the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1954. Argument in Response In the present case, the business of the family was running even in the past but now they wish to change the name of the business. Changing the name of the business helps it to become a brand and be associated with its customers through such brand name. However, irrespective of the name, every business is required to comply with the mandatory legislations in regards to its daily transactions. In Tasmanian Salmon Growers Associations Case[1], the Federal Court held that it is pertinent to undertake training practices and establish compliance programs in respect to the Acts applicable to various practices of the business. Compliance under Property Law Act, 1969 The Subsection 3 of Section 85 of the Property Law Act requires compliance when there is a sale of property and thereby it helps in executing the sale in a legal manner and ensures proper transfer of rights to the parties. It deals with the provisions relating to mortgage, tenancy, conveyance, deeds, etc. and thereby regulates the transfer of property.[2] In the present case, there has been no change of property but the change of name. Thus, no compliance is required under the present legislation. However, if for the expansion of business, the family decides to acquire property then compliance under this legislation shall be required. Competition and Consumer Law, 2010 As per the competition and consumer law, the firm can change its name to Great Catch, however the same should not be in contravention with the Competition and Consumer Laws.[3] Subsection 1 of the Section 51ADG of the Competition and Consumer Law provides that the business should not be involved in any misleading or deceptive or unconscionable conduct or practices in regards to the goods it sells. There should not be any false or misleading representations with the object of luring the customers towards the business. The business must ensure that the new name does not relate with anothers business or has potential to cause confusion in the minds of reasonable customers. The rights of the customers to goods of high quality against the price paid by them must be considered. Thus, the main compliance required under this legislation is to ensure that the interest of consumers is not defeated. Intellectual Property Laws The most crucial law to be complied with, in the present case is Intellectual Property Law. Since the business is changing its name and would want to associate with this name in all future transactions, it is utmost important to ensure that the name solely belongs to the business and is not used by any other name. This can be done by getting a trade mark registered in the name of the business and thereby restraining others to use same or similar names in their business transactions. Trade mark is considered to be the most significant and valuable marketing tool as its helps in establishing the identity of the business and thereby promoting its products and services. For a restaurant it is important that it is known by its name and not confused with others. For acquiring a trademark, first an application will be made that will be subject to the examination of trademark authorities. Upon examination of compliance with various provisions, it shall be approved for the exclusion use of the business.[4] Sale of Goods Act According to subsection 3 of Section 4 of Sale of goods act, it is most relevant when the goods are sold prior to a contract to sell between the parties. In the current case, a restaurant does not execute long contracts with the customers rather the invoice shows that the contract has been completed. Subject matter of contract in the present case is existing goods, which are displayed on the menu and are considered as an invitation to offer. There is immediate delivery of the goods i.e. the food items contracted. Thus, there is no compliance of this law, which is required to be followed in the present case.[5] Conclusion In the present case, the business requires to comply with the provisions dealing with trade mark under the Intellectual Property Law. All other regulations of business law are not required to be followed since there has only been change in the name. However, it is important that such new name must be registered with the registrar of companies to ensure legal validity. Further, the compliance will be required in respect of retaining interest of the customers for which the business must educate its employees to ensure implementation of fair practices at work. Any suit that comes up before the business in relation to compliance shall be dealt with the court of appropriate jurisdiction in Sydney. References ACT, 2006. Sale of Goods Act 1954. ACT, 2006. Sales of Goods Act 1954. Austlii, 2016. Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Austlii, 2016. Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2. Austlii, 2016. Property Law Act 1969. IP Australia, 2016. Trade Marks. Padbury, M., Mendelsohn, N., Matheson, S. Mohamed, A., 2015. Limitations of Trademark Protection. AIPPI.