Law

The Australian legal system has a fundamental foundation of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and justice (Henry 2004). This means the law treats all people, the Australians and the foreigners, equally ensuring that everyone is safeguarded from unfair treatment by the government or its officials.  The main principles of the Australian legal system are the following the procedural fairness, the judicial precedence and the separation of powers. The Australian law system follows the one of the United Kingdom, though it is distinct from most laws that operate in countries of Europe, South America and Japan. It is referred to as the common law system, and countries like the US, New Zealand and Malaysia use different variations of the law (Neil 2009).

The Australian constitution established a system of government called the federal system and the constitution distributes powers between the states and the federal government. The constitution distinguishes two kinds of power, namely, the exclusive power that entails the power of the government to make laws concerning national matters, such as trade, taxation, commerce, external issues, national defense, matters of citizenship and immigration (Terence, 2004). The other power that the federal government has been given by the constitution is called the concurrent power where the two governmental tiers are able to ensure the enactment of laws. The territories and the states have legislative powers that are independent in the matters that are not particularly addressed by the federal government. If there is an inconsistency or controversy between the state territorial laws and the federal ones, the federal laws prevail, because they are applied to the whole territory of Australia. The country has nine legal units, namely, the eight territorial and the overall federal unit. The day to day lives of the Australians are regulated by the territorial laws. Each of the federal and state units incorporates various separate branches of the governance system, namely, the legislative, executive and judiciary power. The legislature is responsible for making laws the executive administers them, while the judiciary interprets them and ensures that they are properly applied. The Australian high court makes an interpretation of the Australian laws and makes decisions concerning the cases of federal significance including   the validity of the law constitutionally. The high court is headed by the chief justice who is assisted by six other senior judges (Whitmore 2009). There are other courts, such as the federal court of Australia, the family court of Australia and the federal magistrates court, which was established by the federal legislature in 1999, and has a wide jurisdiction. The Australian territorial courts have jurisdiction of all matters that are brought under the state or the territorial laws. The courts of the self-governing territories in the North and Capital Part, which are subject to the Commonwealths general legislature, have plenary constitutional powers to make laws that would maintain order and peace in the states or the territories that they are made in (Whitmeore 2009). Each state and territorial system of courts is independent and some of the laws vary in nature.

The government of Australia understands that people should have an access to the legal representation in order to ensure common justice. This means that the government can provide the legal representation to individuals who may not have the wherewithal to hire their own representative. Australia does not maintain a strict separation between the legislative and executive branches of power the government ministers are required to be members of parliament. The Federal system of government in Australia presupposes that the legislative powers are divided between the states and the Commonwealth. This is popularly referred to as the federal division of powers, and the named powers are usually exercised by the Commonwealth, as the courts have expanded the scope of the legal decisions, which the Commonwealth can make. The Northern and Capital territories are usually subjected to the authority of the Commonwealth in exercising the full plenary powers, especially, if the territorial laws are not concomitant with the federal laws. However, the constitution states that there shall not arise a controversy in the interpretation of the federal and the state laws, because if such a discrepancy arises, the federal law shall be always superior in relation to different laws of each state.

The states including the  self-governing territories in the North and  Capital Part, which are subject to the Commonwealths overriding have plenary constitutional powers to make laws that would maintain order and peace in the states or the territories they are made in. This means that most the laws in section 51 are concurrent while those in the next section are very exclusive to the Commonwealth. This further explains that the states can issue legislative acts in the aforementioned areas, as long as there is inconsistency with the federal law, which also falls under the division of powers. However, a situation where the high court has been largely involved in the interpretation of the constitutional provisions has led to a marked increase in the Commonwealths powers, thus, the executive at the expense of the territorial and statutory powers (Whitmore 2009). The Australian parliament is the arm of the government that makes laws and supervises all the other arms of the federal government and can make changes to the laws, if this is deemed appropriate. The parliament is bi-cameral, which implies that it consists of the queen, the senate that has seventy six members and the house of representative members, who are 150 in numbers. There are two types of senators in the parliament, namely, the state and the territory senators, the latter being elected using the preferential voting, which means that their term in the office is not fixed. The territory senators are more influential in the national decision-making, because they represent a larger number of citizens than the state senators.

Contract of sale
 A contract of sale is an agreement that is signed in the case of the exchange of goods, property or services conducted by the vendor to the purchaser for the value that is agreed upon. This type of contracts is, without doubt, both the most common and the most important of all commercial contracts. It is an ancient exchange practice recognized by the common laws, but the Australian statutory law has recognized it only recently. The Sale of Goods Act of 1896 was designed to ensure that the transactions between merchants are straightforward (Salanie 2003). The most basic application of the contracts of sale is the simple transfer of property, goods or services based on the monetary consideration, which may involve the part- or the full owner. This means that there are two levels of a contract of sale, namely, absolute and conditional.

A sale contract is signed when the property is transferred from a vendor to a purchaser while an agreement to sell occurs when the contract of sale is not signed immediately, but is given a future consideration. This means that an agreement to sell becomes a sale procedure after the time span indicated in the agreement elapses. In every transaction that involves the transfer of goods, property and services based on the monetary consideration, the contract of sale must be involved whether consciously or subconsciously and this capacity to make purchase or conduct sales is usually regulated by the general Australian law under the Sales Act of 1896. There are even laws that regulate contracts of sales made by people who are incapacitated, like the drunks, mentally challenged people or even minors, who may not have the mental capacity to understand the details of the contract.  The most common contracts of sale today are usually done in writing and the writing can be with or without a seal.

There are other types, albeit in few cases that are made by word of mouth or a combination of the two methods. The rules are, however, different when it comes to contracts of sale made by corporations (Fitzgerald 2006). The goods that are involved in the contract of sale may be already inexistent or manufactured or processed later after the contract is signed, and in reality, this is usually referred as future goods. There may be a contract of sale of goods where the sale depends on the contingency, and this may not materialize meaning that in case a contract of sale is purported to effect a present sale of a good that is not already in existence the contract is not yet a contract of sale, but an agreement to sell which means that there are chances that it may never be signed after all. The contract becomes null and void, if the goods which the seller and the buyer are transacting have perished without the knowledge of the seller prior to the making of the contract. However, if they perish after the agreement to sell is made, the risk is usually passed to the buyer according to the law. One of the most important factors in a contract of sale is pricing the price may be fixed by the contract or the space for it may be left blank to be decided by the vendor and the buyer depending on circumstantial considerations in the course of dealership between the two transacting parties (Terry 2003). Another famous instance in the modern days, still, under a contract of sale is the agreement to sell goods using terms where the price will be fixed by the third party-evaluation, and if that the third party cannot make an evaluation, the agreement is usually avoided. If the third party is prohibited from making the evaluation because of the fault of the vendor or the purchaser, the third party usually may seek damages from the two parties at fault. According to the Australian laws, a contract of sale is always subject to a condition that must be fulfilled by the seller and the buyer may decide to waive the condition or even treat that condition as a breach of contract depending on how the seller behaves especially if it is an agreement to sell.

 The law in the case of a breach of a contract of sale is the condition that gives repudiations or warranties and any party can claim for damages arising form the breach, but this depends on the construction of the contract and the stipulations that were laid down when the contract was being made. This means that the contact is not severable and the buyer has to accept the goods once the contract is signed and any illogical grounds for rejecting it may lead to the treating of the contract as repudiated (Salanie 2003). The implied terms in a contract of sale is that the goods are free and they remain free until a time shall come when the property passes to the buyer and the buyer is entitled to enjoy the quiet possession of the good, unless he or she is intercepted by the seller or any other party related to the contract.

One of the most common contracts of sale is the hire purchase contract (Cossa 2008). Hire purchase is a close ended leasing and occurs in the cases where the buyer cannot afford to pay the price that the seller has quoted at one go or in a lump sum, but can afford to pay a fraction of the price as a deposit followed monthly rent figures called installments. In this case, the buyer gains possession of the property before he or she settles the full amount but the seller gets a percentage higher of the original price when the full amount is paid after the agreed period because the hire purchase price is always higher than the ordinary cash price. In most circles, hire purchase is referred to as installment plans or rent to own. In case the buyer does not honor the payment as agreed in the contract, the seller is allowed by the terms in the contract to repossess the property without refunding the deposit and the installments already paid. This is because the contract is even recognized by the law and the action the seller will take will be in accordance with the law.

Ethics
Business ethics is also known as corporate ethics and is applied to examine the principles of ethics that arise in the business atmosphere concerning every aspect of how a certain business conducts itself. The conduct of individuals in a business is very relevant in the analysis of business ethics in a certain entity. Ethicism is the focus on ethical processes of business, especially, in the conscience focused 21st century business environment where pressure is being loaded upon businesses to improve the way they conduct themselves ethically. The reason for this is that the gains that are made when a business acts in an unethical manner are short term, but the long term effects can be highly detrimental. Most businesses act ethically for a variety of reasons, especially, avoidance of fines and litigations, improving the reputation in the public realm, protecting the investments of the share holders, and to also protect the market share of the business. An ethical business has a competitive advantage over unethical ones, especially, because internal corruption is not condoned in such a business.

Unethical Practices at Boeing
One of the companies that have been riddled by a myriad of unethical practices in the recent past is the leading plane maker, Boeing of the United States (NY Times 2003). These unethical practices range from illegal business deals, accounting malpractices and illicit sexual liaisons involving top executives. The latest blemish on the waning reputation of the aero maker is the sentencing of the chief financial officer at Boeing, Mr. Mike Sears, to four years of imprisonment for secretly negotiating with a procurement officer at the US air force to lease about 100 planes to be modified, so that they can become tankers.

The investigations of this illicit deal have cost the government more than 2.5 million dollars. This is one of the most high profile corruption cases that would have cost the government and the taxpayers at large billions of dollars, had the secret deal gone though. The public outcry towards the revelations was sharp and acerbic because it exposed the underbelly of Boeing which in the past has had a clean record shying away from various controversies that have tainted a variety of companies in the United States of America.

In 2003, Phillip Condit was forced to resign because of the widespread criticism against Boeing due to the unethical business practices in a series of ethical lapses that has hit the worlds leading aero maker. The resignation was as a result of a lawsuit filed by its competitor, Lockheed, that resulted in pentagon canceling contracts of more than 1 billion that were supposed to be awarded to Boeing and the company was also disqualified from making bids for defense projects for two years. This is because it was found out that the company had been spying on the competitor in a manner that was likely to affect the market presence of the latter.

These revelations also brought under scrutiny the tanker project that Boeing had a deal with the US air force. The pressure from the media forced the Pentagon to review the deal actually at the negotiation stage. Two top executives had been sacked prior to the resignation of Condit. These top executives had been involved in human resource malpractices where underhand methods were used to hire some top accounting personnel in order to conceal some unethical accounting malpractices that would have seen the government lose billions in revenue from the multi billion dollar aero company. A few months later, the CEO who took over from Condit was also forced to resign after an illicit sexual liaison with a junior female member of staff that brought the reputation of the company down. Harry Stonecipher did not even make a year at the helm of the embattled air craft manufacturer before he was forced out due to an improper relationship with the female officer. Though the relationship did not have an impact on any business of the company, the revelation of the relationship with the executive young enough to be his daughter is enough to dent the image of the company already grappling with bad publicity due to an upsurge of unethical behaviors.

A CEO is supposed to be the one leading in upholding any ethic that is laid out by the company and the conduct of Mr. Stonecipher, did not reflect that of someone who is supposed to lead the way in ensuring that high levels of corporate ethics are followed in the company. It is also a bad example to the young members of the public who are looking up to influential figures like Mr. Stonecipher for motivation and inspiration. The public expects a person holding the position like that to be of unquestionable integrity and ethics and morality which means that Mr. Stonecipher has terribly failed the test and as such cannot be entrusted to hold such a position of public importance. These ethical lapses have brought down the credibility of this are manufacturer and there has been considerable media and public scrutiny on the corporate governance of the company. This is because Boeing is a blue chip company which is a trendsetter in the aviation industry and one of the historical industrial masterpieces in the United States. This means that this is the pride of the nation and any bit of negative development is bound to raise the public dissatisfaction.

There is the accepted code of ethics that the CEOs and the top executives of the company were supposed to adhere to that they did not. Starting with the cancelled deal with the US air force, the CEO was supposed to handle the deal in a manner that does not betray the corporate image of the company. However, the CEO decided to use underhand methods of spying onto the operations of its main competitor, thus, compromising it is the companys image that is supposed to be without blemish (NY Times 2003). There is no problem, if the US air force decided to split the tender and award it to the two rival company but sending officers on an espionage mission to the rival firm in order to scrutinize all their business deals was a contravention of the fair play policy and raised questions about the credibility of Condit as a CEO who was supposed to lead Boeing out of the woods.

The move was cheap and tainted the image of the company in the public eye. The public who the company serves also expects the leadership of the company to be responsible and act in a way that would not have a detrimental impact on one of the biggest national symbols. A tainted image of a national symbol taints the whole nation and that is why high quality business practices and ethics are supposed to be upheld (Terry 2009). The case involving illegal recruitment of accounting executives was a move that was supposed to hide the underhand and unethical accounting principles of the company that were geared towards tax avoidance and other forms of defrauding the government (NY Times 2003). Once again, corruption, whether in hiring or in accounting is a very unethical practice that the public does not expect from a company of Boeing stature. It is expected that the company should submit clean accounts to the public, but the revelations that illegal hiring were made in order to adulterate the accounts in bid to defraud the government is a stain on the company and that is why the top executives had to be sacked. At the time when the American public has become increasingly conscious of the gradually growing corruption cases in the country corporate and public realms, such revelations coming from a symbolic multinational are just too grave to contemplate (NY Times 2003). As a result of the string of ethical scandals that have hit the company in the recent years, the public confidence in one of Americas biggest exporters of technology has dipped to an all time low and this loss of confidence in the corporate governance can also affect the market share of the company, because people will now start questioning the products of the company.

The public expects an all-around perfection in any company that is in business, because if the way the company is being administered is questionable, then even the process of making the goods or providing some services will be in doubt (Garland 2009). In the mind of the public are a myriad of unanswered questions, because what has been unearthed about Boeing may be just a fraction of the rot that is in the company and this decay may compromise the companys efficiency in providing the world class technology that is famed for. This will subsequently dent the competitive advantage that Boeing has been having internationally and giving its competitors space to catch up and even take its market share. The effect of this unethical behavior can be evidenced by the gradual dip of the share prices of the Boeing Company at the local stock market (NY Times 2003).