MGMT6018 - Business Law: Comparing Mexico and Australian Systems

This report provides a comparative analysis of the legal systems governing business transactions in Mexico and Australia, focusing on key areas such as contract law, tort law, intellectual property law, and agency and employment law. It contrasts the Mexican legal framework, which includes the F...Read More

Running head: Business Law & International context

Business Law & International context 1
Introduction
The legal system of Mexico and Australia comprises of various laws governing the execution of
business and trade in both the countries. The Mexican contract Act includes the Federal Antitrust
Law, the Foreign Investment Law, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other
relevant treaties and the General Corporation Law while in Australia; the contracts are governed
by the Australian Contract Act. In Mexico, the Intellectual Property Law and the Federal
Copyright Law cover the intellectual property laws. Many of the foreign companies conducting
their business in the country are governed by NAFTA’s Intellectual Property Law whereas in
Australia it is governed by Patent Attorney Act, the Copyright Act etc. (Greene & Heilbrun,
2013).
As per the civil law of Mexico, there are thirty-five sections pertaining to Tort in the Civil Code
of jurisdiction whereas, in Australia, it is governed by the Tort Law in Australia. The agency and
employment act consists of Mexican Federal Labor Law (MFLL) while in Australia it is
governed through the Workplace Relations Act 1996. So, in this report, the above-mentioned
Laws will be analyzed and assessed in the context of business transactions in Mexico and
compared with the Australian Legal system.
Comparison between the Contract Act of Mexico and Australia
Contract Law in Mexico Australian Contract Act
Business Law & International context

Business Law & International context 2
The commercial entity and individuals can
enter into any type of contract which is legal
and serves the corporate purpose of the
company.
The Contract act of Australia is based on the
common law and it has permitted the legal
enforcement of all types of contracts. All the
contracts should be valid unless it is
demonstrated otherwise (Edelman, Goudkamp
& Degeling, 2015).
The essential requirements for a legally
enforceable contract are consent and logical
subject matter of the contract. The consent can
be expressed or implied. The purpose of the
agreement must be lawful, possible and
marketable (Schwenzer, Hachem & Kee,
2012).
The six important elements of a legally
enforceable contract are capability, agreement,
consideration, purposeful, written instrument
and reliability.
A material breach of contracts is restricted up
to the parties to the agreement and they are
governed the Contract Act of Australia. Under
article 2106, the liability emerging from the
willful misconduct is enforced and it cannot be
waived by both the parties (Fried, 2015).
The breach of the contract would allow the
other party to dismiss the contract if it is a
repudiatory breach i.e. the parties have the
right to terminate the contract.
Secondly, upon breach of the contract, if the
parties have specifically provided then
innocent party is legally allowed to dismiss the
contract (Whincop, Keyes & Posner, 2018).

Business Law & International context 3
The remedies available for the non-breaching
parties are that the other party must
compensate the damages caused. The damaged
party can claim the performance of the
agreement or the contractual penalty but it
cannot opt for both the remedies at the same
time ( Filosa, 2013).
The damages and liquidated claims are the
common remedies available for the breach of
contracts. The compensation acts as a
substitute for the performance of the contract.
In the equitable remedies , the specific
performance of the contract is executed while
considering the true intention of the parties.
Comparison between the Law of Torts of Mexico and Australia
New Mexico’s Tort Claim Act 1978 Tort law in Australia
Under the New Mexico’s Tort Claim Act 1978,
the occurrences of the tortious act are
determined and a causality relationship
between the injury and act is established. Then
the damages and losses are determined and
then it awards the economic indemnification.
Both common law and legislation are
components of Tort Law in Australia. Tort is
regarded as civil wrong and one individual
may sue another for rectifying the wrong or
form of conduct (Barker et al., 2012).
The statute of limitation for a tort which is
derived from the product liability claim is two
There are various time limits prescribed for
various torts. The time limit for filing a suit for

Business Law & International context 4
years. As per the Limitation Act 1985 in
Australia this is associated with defects, the a
period of filing for the said action would be 30
calendar days .
A complaint before a Federal Consumer
Protection Agency should be filed within 1
year from the product purchase. Lastly, the
class actions associated with product liability
have a limitation period of 3 years and 6
months.
negligence is three years from the emergence
of the cause of action by the claimants or
within 12 years from the acts resulting in
injury.
As per the New Mexico’s Tort Claims Act
NMSA 1978 , the tort claims can be filed if the
injury results from a car accident or when it is
related to the dangerous or defective property.
It can also be filed in the cases of medical
malpractice of the government employees
working in hospitals or healthcare institution,
negligent operations of public utility services
or injuries arising due to careless operations at
the airport (Solove & Schwartz, 2011).
The various classes of claims under the
Australian law are occupation, trespasses or
possession of the land, breach of duties,
misrepresentation associated with public
statutes, interference with employment and
family relations, negligence and deliberate
damage to fiscal interests (Australian Law
Reform Commission, n.d.).

Business Law & International context 5

Business Law & International context 6
Comparison between the Intellectual Property laws of Mexico and Australia
Intellectual Property laws of Mexico Australian Intellectual Property laws
Intellectual Property Rights are covered by the
Industrial Property Law and the Federal
Copyright Law 1996.
The Industrial Property Law safeguards the
industrial designs and exclusively grants the
right to utilize or exploit the design to the
owner of the registered design.
The National Institute of Copyright manages
the registrations of copyrights and arbitrates
various types of disputes of copyrights.
The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property
governs the patent and trademark registrations
and administers the enforcement cases of
infringement of IPR.
The industrial design is registered if it contains
a variety of features which are not available in
The intellectual property laws in Australia are
related to trademarks, patents, designs and
secret processes. Safeguarding the patent
grants the right to forbid the third parties to
deal trade and utilize any invention in Australia
(Bently & Sherman, 2014).
Design Act 2003 governs the design in
Australia. Design can be defined as the overall
depiction of the product resulting from its one
or more visual features.
In Australia, copyrights are administered by
Copyright Act 1968. The copyright protects the
artistic works, computer programs,
compilations and textual materials.
Safeguarding the trademark provides the right
to utilize, permit their use or sell the
trademarks. Trademarks are administered by

Business Law & International context 7
any of the related arts or are not recognized in
common and most available commercial
products.
The procedure for filing the application is
initiated with a formal verification regarding
the compliance with the legal and
administrative requirements. Once it is
registered, the owner has the legal right to
bring the proceedings against the third party
which has copied, imitated or sold its designs
in a fraudulent manner (Stevens et al.,2012).
Trademark Act 1995.
Different classes of IP processes are registered
in various ways. For example, in order to
register the patent, one has to file either a
standard innovation or international patent
application (PCT). It is subsequently verified
under Global Patent Prosecution Highway
(GPPH) or under IP Australia- European Patent
Office Patent Prosecution Highway (IP
Australia- EPOPPH).
Copyright is registered under Copyrights Act
1996 which bestows the ownership of the
patrimonial rights to the employer in case a
labor agreement is entered between the
employer and employee provided that a
No formal registration of Copyright is required
in Australia. The artistic work is automatically
registered after its creation .

Business Law & International context 8
provision stating expressly that the rights
belong to the former.
Comparison between the Agency and Employment Law of Mexico and Australia
Mexican Federal Labor Law(MFLL) Fair Work Act 2009 (Australia)
The main sources of employment law are
international treaties approved by the Mexican
Senate, constitutional rights, general
regulations of law and fairness and precedents
of the Supreme Court of Justice (Ronconi,
2012).
The disputes either collective or individualistic
in nature emerging from the labor relationships
can be resolved before the Labor Courts which
exist at the local and federal levels.
The labor claims are also resolved by Local
and Federal conciliations and Arbitration
Boards. These are formulated by
representatives of government, employer and
employees.
In Australia, the Fair Work Act 2009 has
provided an agenda for workplace relations
who are intended for promoting the welfare
and economic prosperity of the citizens of
Australia.
According to the Fair Work Act 2009 the
Australian Industrial Relations Council
(AIRC) has been formed to provide
provisions for the settlement of industrial
disputes (Freyens & Oslington, 2013).
It has also allowed for the negotiation and
execution of collective and individual
employment agreement.

Business Law & International context 9
As per the Mexican Federal Labor
Law(MFLL), the maximum working hours per
week as day shift should be 48 hours and a day
off should be provided per week.
38 hours are the standard working hours in
Australia. Moreover, there is a provision
regarding the flexibility of working hours for
the employees so that they can work flexibly
according to their convenience.
As per the National Employment Standards,
the minimum entitlements have to be
provided to the employees. The ten minimal
entitlements are annual leave, parental care ,
requests for flexible working hours, long
service leaves , public holidays ,maximum
weekly hours, public holidays , fair work
information statement and notice of
termination and redundancy pay.
The minimum wages are MXN$80.04. as per
MFLL.
As per MFLL, any kind of discrimination is
As per AIRC, the minimum wages are
administered by Section 88A (b) of the Fair
Work Act 2009. The act ensures the safety net
for protecting the minimum wages and
clauses of employment.
The Federal and State Administration restrict

Business Law & International context 10
prohibited in Mexico. All the employees are
safeguarded on the grounds of race. Sexual
preference and nationality etc.
the discernment so that equal job
opportunities can be provided on the basis of
pregnancy. Other acts are the Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 and Equal
Opportunities Act 1984 etc.

Business Law & International context 11
Conclusion
This report can be concluded by stating that the Mexican Legal system is flexible and permits the
foreigners to conduct the business in the country. The laws and regulations assist the outsiders
and the citizens of the home country to conduct trade and business in the scenario country.
Moreover, the legal system of Australia consists of various laws which are governed by the
Constitution of Australia and the rules formed by the legislation passed by the Federal
Parliament.

Business Law & International context 12
References
Australian Law Reform Commission (n.d.). Authorizing what would otherwise be a Tort.
Retrieved July 13th, 2018 from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-
sue-tort
Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. & Trindade, F. (2012). The law of torts in Australia.
Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.100-110.
Bently, L. & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press: USA.
1000.
Edelman, J., Goudkamp, J. & Degeling, S(2015) . Contemporary Problems in the Law of
Contract . Australian Bar Review, 40(2015), 174–184.
Filosa, A. (2013). The New Mexico Structured Settlement Protection Act: Whose Best Interests
Does the Legislation Protect?. Retrieved July 13th, 2018 from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2369080
Freyens, B. P. & Oslington, P. (2013). A first look at incidence and outcomes of unfair dismissal
claims under fair work, work choices and the workplace relations
act. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 16(2), 295.
Fried, C. (2015). Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation.NY: Oxford University
Press.1-195.

Business Law & International context 13
Ronconi, L. (2012). Globalization, domestic institutions, and enforcement of labor law: Evidence
from Latin America. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and
Society, 51(1), 89-105.
Schwenzer, I., Hachem, P. & Kee, C. (2012). Global sales and contract law. NY: Oxford
University Press.1-847.
Solove, D. & Schwartz, P. (2011). Privacy law fundamentals. USA: International Association of
Privacy Professionals (IAPP). 1-15.
Stevens, R. E., Loudon, D. L., Gordon, G. & Williams, T. (2012). Doing business in Mexico: A
practical guide. London: Routledge.88-104.
Whincop, M. J., Keyes, M. & Posner, R. A. (2018). Policy and Pragmatism in the Conflict of
Laws. NY: Routledge.1-225.