INTEGRATING BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES
“The legal regulation of business is a necessary evil in the Australian business environment”. Discuss the arguments for and against this statement using examples of where the law has enhanced and hindered business.
Regulating businesses through the law, allows Australian businesses to flourish, while at the same time, ensuring that all involved are protected. While there are downfalls to the regulation of businesses, the overall benefits of legal regulation, far outweigh the damages caused. This is seen in the case of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in which business rights are mandated to ensure a fair business environment for all. However in the case of the Sydney lockout laws,
…show more content…
The NSW Liquor Act (2007) was amended by the Liquor Amendment Act (2014) to introduce certain rules revolving around lock out times and alcohol service. While the laws in question, did indeed reduce alcohol related violence by as much as 32% in Kings Cross and 26% in Sydney CBD – it is unknown whether this result occurred due to a fall in alcohol consumption or due to the lower number of people visiting the Kings Cross and Sydney CBD precincts as the laws essentially hindered Sydney night life from thriving. (Menendez et al., 2015) This is due to the fact that the laws sent a number of businesses, which were reliant upon the consumption of alcohol out of business. This then led to other businesses, which were supplemented by those consuming alcohol also having a significant drop in revenue. As such, the renowned Sydney nightlife has significantly dropped with foot traffic down 58% by 11pm on a Friday and down 80% by 4am. Chief Executive of Freelancer, Matt Barrie has stated that “Every week, another venue or restaurant closes. The soul of the city has been
In the beginning of the twenties America was in the midst of an economic boom, people were happy- World War I was over and Americans were rich. But by the end, because of prohibition, and in large part because of the stock market crash, the American economy quickly declined into the Great Depression. During this time the 18th Amendment- prohibition- was passed. Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Theater producers were expecting an increase in customers as Americans searched for new ways to entertain themselves, ways that did not involve alcohol. But this did not happen. Instead, there was a decline in amusement and entertainment industries all over the United States. Some restaurants even failed, as they could no longer make a profit without legal liquor sales. On the whole, the initial economic effects of Prohibition were largely negative. The closing of breweries, distilleries and saloons led to the elimination of thousands of jobs, and in turn thousands more jobs were eliminated for barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and other related trades. One of the most profound effects of Prohibition was on government tax revenues. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. Almost 75% of New York’s revenue came from liquor taxes, but with prohibition in effect, all that reven...
...efits from adopting unfair business practices and discouraging competition are much higher than the expected penalty and punishment. With changing time, there is need to make these laws more effective and relevant.
This essay will examine key aspects of the recent implementation of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) 2011, which is the largest overhaul in Consumer Law in Australia in the past twenty five years. The ACL replaces 20 existing State and Territory laws into one national law , the legislation was enacted in two main parts as Schedule 2 of the renamed Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) . Aforementioned this essay it will outline the key benefits of the implementation of the act. Furthermore it will critique the Act, whilst exploring the objectives of the legislation.
Businesses wanted to move forward within their industry, so by taking away alcohol they thought it would become more productive.
Other economic problems were that citizens found themselves “drinking away” their pay cheques. These economic problems resulted in the government not taking in as much money as they could have, and spending money in areas that could have been avoided, if prohibition hadn’t existed in the first place. It was apparent that Prohibition didn’t achieve its goals, instead, it added to the existing economic and social problems, as well as creating new problems that would be prominent in today’s society. Organized crime grew into an empire, disrespect for the law grew, the per capita consumption of alcohol increased dramatically, city officials fell to gangsters, and the government lost money. It is obvious that prohibition is a miserable failure from all points of view.
On January 16, 1919, America changed forever the Amendment, declaring it illegal to manufacture, transport, and sell alcoholic beverages in the United States. More than two-thirds of the Senate, two-thirds of the House of Representatives, and three-fourths of the state legislature have now approved the change. Prohibition was ruled illegal because drinking is one of America’s most serious problems, including child abuse, crime, unemployment, and workers safety. People would come to work with a hangover or were really drunk, and some of the workers where probably so drunk that they were absent from work. Then fourteen years after the Amendment was repealed, it was almost as if Americans changed their minds on Prohibition.
“Before prosperity can return in this country the budgets of local and national governments must be balanced. If the liquor now sold by bootleggers was legally sold, regulated, and taxed, the tax income would pay the interest on the entire local and national debt and leave more than $200,000,000 for urgently needed purposes”(Document E). If alcohol were legalized again, the government could collect an excise tax on it. The tax would solve the national debt problem and provide the nation with a surplus of funding. Overall, the eradication of prohibition could have provided more money for the federal, state, and local
The role of law reform has responded rather effectively to a certain extent in protecting the rights of consumers. This is evident in the legal responses introduced to address issues of credit, marketing innovation and technology. These law amendments has effectively increase the protection of the rights of consumers to a certain extent, however loopholes still exist. Due to the increasing range of goods and services continues to grow and the failure of existing laws, the role of law reform has been significant in protecting the rights of consumers. Consumer laws were created to prevent deceitful activities, or unfair business practices, as well as serving a protection for weaker parties who are unable to protect themselves. However, laws were later reformed to enable customers to transact with confidence and protect suppliers, consumers from inappropriate business conduct and to reflect changed community values and circumstances.
Prohibition was passed to eradicate the demand for liquor but had the inadvertent effect to raise the crime rates in American. Robert Scott stated, “Prohibition was supposed to lower crime and corruption, reduce social problems, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America” (Scott 2). As the demand for alcohol increased, people began to find new methods to mask the production and consumption of liquor. It became easier to break the rules. Organized crime blossomed and many law-abiding citizens turned into criminals. Court and prisons systems became over run and the drinking habits of American's changed for the worse.
The health of a labour market can be judged by levels of unemployment and changes in wage growth. Both of these issues come into play when The Australian Financial Review reports that the Australian labour market has tightened over the past twelve months and comments on predictions for the coming year.
The rate of crime during the Prohibition Era increased and the gangs were responsible for it. Police officers and gang members were dying in large numbers, corrupt police departments, judicial officials and government officials were everywhere, and they helped to prevent liquor sellers from being prosecuted.38 Moreover, without the regulation of the government and enforcement of tax policy, alcohol producers and distributors no longer had to pay tax, and were free to decide what strength their alcohol was, how they would manufacture their alcohol, and in how they ran their liquor establishments.39 Alcohol producers and distributors during prohibition would also have been able to avoid spending unnecessary funding on marketing since the industry was illegal. As a result, it is difficult to “justify prohibition on economic grounds,” since prohibition had ambiguous implications on whether it was successful
To become successful in business it is essential to have a dog eat dog mentality as your competition may attempt to work the legal systems to gain a competitive advantage against you. That is exactly how Shell describes legislation, regulation, and litigation uses as an advantage for firms in his book titled Make the Rules or Your Rivals Will. The first example, network TV companies (Fox, CBS and ABC) vs. satellite TV companies (DirecTV, Dish Network, and PrimeTime 24), demonstrates how the customer plays a key part in the way legislation is shaped to benefit both parties. The second example, RCA vs. CBS, demonstrates how they used regulation to set the color TV standard in the 1950’s in an effort to force the markets to use their products. The third and last
The implementation of public policy and laws to do with alcohol use is one harm reduction strategy that the government has tried. There are a huge amount of laws to do with alcohol consumption. In Australia, the legal drinking
Corporate law is an area of law that directly relates to dealings with corporations within our legal system. “In Ontario, law compromises of statutes, regulations and cases. This means that to understand the law in any area, you must familiarize yourself with the statute or statutes that relate to that area, check related regulations where required, and read cases that show you how the courts have applied those statutes and regulations in real life situations” (Corporate Law for Ontario Businesses, 2012, pg. 2). In this paper I will be doing just that. I am going to be looking at a particular case that happened and examine how the courts applied legal regulations to a real life situation. I will also be examining what it means for a corporation to be a separate legal entity, as well as the level of importance a shareholder has within a company. All of these topics directly relate to the case I will be examining and are important to knowing in order to understand why the court made the decision that they did. Lastly, I will be discussing my own personal opinions on the case and the decision made by the courts.
William O. Douglas said, "Common sense often makes good law." Well that is what laws essentially are, rules and regulations that make sure common sense is followed. One could even say that laws are enforced ethics. Laws serve several roles and functions in business and society, and this paper will discuss those roles and functions.