University Assignment: Principles of Business Governance (MBS 518)

This report analyzes two case studies related to business governance. The first case examines whether rangers can restrict entry to a park based on a bill, focusing on statutory interpretation and the rights of cyclists. The second case explores a bailment agreement between a railway and a customer, addressing issues of liability for lost belongings and the impact of contractual terms. The report applies legal principles to each scenario, considering relevant legislation, case law, and contractual obligations. The analysis provides conclusions on the legal outcomes and implications for the parties involved, offering insights into the practical application of business governance principles. References to relevant legal sources are included to support the analysis.

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
.
Name of Student:
Student ID:
Name of the University:
Module Code: MBS 518 Principles of Business Governance

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Submission date:
1

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Table of Contents
Question 1..................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Issue..................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Rule...................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Application.......................................................................................................................2
1.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................................3
Question 2..................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Issue..................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Rule...................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Application.......................................................................................................................5
2.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................7
2

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Question 1
1.1 Issue
The issue in the present case study has been indicated below:
 Whether the Rangers can restrict the entry of Mary to the Park based on Section 5 of
the Ellenbrook National Park Bill that prohibits the entrance of vehicles to the
Ellenbrook Park
1.2 Rule
Section 5 of the Act Restriction of Entry Bill was passed to restrict traffic into the
Ellenbrook National Park. According to the Act, vehicles would not be permitted to enter the
Ellenbrook National Park. The Commonwealth Minister expressed concern over the land
used by picnickers, bushwalkers, cyclist as the restriction of the vehicles raises the question
over the prohibition of the land. It is a matter of concern whether preservation of the area
from heavy traffic also includes the exclusion of the entry of cyclists into the ground as well.
In that case, the interests of the cyclists are endangered.
The enactment of purposive interpretation and legislative provisions are required to interpret
the legislation that is concerned with the fundamental civil rights of human beings
(Dharmananda and Lane 2016). The principles that act as the basis for the appropriate
interpretation of the legislation are the analysis of the text of Bill, where the applicable law is
stated rather than in the judicial statements. The statutory construction has been done to give
effect to the Parliamentary rules expressed in the statutory provisions and lastly to derive the
meaning of the text of legislation without considering statutory words in isolation so that the
purpose of the Parliament is not violated.
3

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
1.3 Application
Section 5 of the Bill suggests the restriction of the entry of the vehicles by the rangers in
the Ellenbrook National Park. However, the Commonwealth Minister stated that the purpose
of the passing of the Bill was concerned with protecting the interests of the bushwalkers,
picnickers and cyclists which were being hampered due to heavy traffic. This advertently
indicates that if cycles are also considered to be under the category of vehicles. If the cycles
are banned, it violates the very purpose of the Bill that recognized the rights of cyclists as
well.
In CIC Insurance Ltd. v. Bankstown Football Club Ltd. (1997), the High Court of Australia
affirmed the modern approach to statutory interpretation which insisted that the context be
considered in the first instance in the interpretation of statutes (Eresources 2018). It can be
hereby mentioned that the accurate reading and interpretation of the legislation is necessary
to comprehend the purpose of the Bill so that the interests are preserved and the goal is
achieved at the same time. In addition to this, the statutory provisions are required to be
enacted accordingly so that the purpose of the Parliament is given effect. Finally, for the Bill
to be effective the purpose of the Parliament is required to be fulfilled and therefore exact
examination and interpretation of the sentences are vital to derive the precise meaning in the
context of its use.
1.4 Conclusion
The enactment of the Bill implies that heavy traffic is prohibited in the Ellenbrook National
Park. However, the foundation of the Bill lies at aiding the cyclists, bushwalkers and
picnickers which therefore does not give the rangers the authority to prohibit the entry of the
cyclists as that would lead to the contradiction and violation of the very statement and
objective of the Bill.
4

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
Question 2
2.1 Issue
The issue in the present case study has been identified as follows:
 Whether Yvonne has the cause of action in claiming for the loss of $3000
 Whether Yvonne would have the cause of action in the instance of Western Rail
allowing for a third party in claiming Yvonne’s belonging without the requirement of
producing a ticket for it
 Whether the outcome proves to be different in the absence of any sign above the
counter or that of the counterpart of the ticket in mentioning the conditions
2.2 Rule
The rules applicable in this case is the bailment agreement; this agreement involves the
temporary possession of the goods by the bailee in the exchange of something from the
bailor. There are three types of Bailment arrangement, namely Gratuitous Bailment, Bailment
for Reward, and Sub-Bailment. In the case of Gratuitous Bailment, such agreement occurs
when the bailor does not offer anything to the bailee against the bailment arrangement. In the
case of Bailment for Reward, both bailee and the bailor get benefited from the contract, with
the presence of due consideration. The third type is Sub-Bailment, wherein the bailment
agreement between the two parties has been entrusted with another party.
The underlying principles of bailment agreement include Retention, Delivery, Exception of
delivery and Remedies. Retention states about the reasonable care that the bailee takes to
retain the goods and documents of the bailor and the aspect of Deliver indicates about the job
of the bailee to deliver the goods and document to bailor in proper condition (Ong 2018).
The obligation in the context of the delivery of the goods in appropriate condition has some
5

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
exceptions. The breach of the obligation in the context of the duty that needs to be fulfilled by
the bailee has different types of remedies.
2.3 Application
The rules, following this particular case, are known as Bailment arrangement. This is a
contractual arrangement that can get reflected in both everyday situations and commercial
contracts. In this case, the scenario when the cloakroom man offers to keep the luggage in the
exchange of $5 to Yvonne, unknowingly both have entered into a bailment arrangement. In
this arrangement, bailee (the cloakroom person) takes temporary possession of the product of
the bailor (Yvonne) for a particular period with a commitment to return the goods to the
bailor. In this arrangement, the title to the product does not go the bailee from bailor.
In this case, Yvonne wants to claim for her loss of $3000, but the law is not allowing her as
the rules state that the bailee is not the issuer of the goods. The bailee is only responsible for
taking care of the good of bailor and can take minimum precautions to protect the goods of
the bailor. In this particular case, Yvonne can claim for her loss as it has been mentioned in
the ticket also that the wester railways will not take any responsibility in the context of the
packages that have been kept in the cloakroom. If the western railways would have allowed
any third party to claim the package of Yvonne without asking for a ticket then, Yvonne
would have asked for the claim for losses because the clock room person cannot allow any
individual to claim the package on behalf of any passenger without producing the ticket.
According to the rule, the responsibility of the clock room person is to take care of the
packages that have been submitted by the passenger, and the clock room person cannot give
the package to anyone without checking the ticket against it. If the western railway had
delivered the package to any third party, the railways would have been liable to pay $3000 to
the Yvonne as compensation. As mentioned in Houghland v. Low Luxury Coaches (1962),
in case of gratuitous bailment ‘gross negligence’ amounts to be a necessary element and the
6

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS GOVERNANCE
standard of the onus is on the bailee in possession of the goods. It the bailee who will have to
prove that the caused damaged is not on account of the fault of the bailee (Auckland 2019).
If the Western rail would not have mentioned in the front of the ticket to attract the attention
of the traveller towards the condition that has been mentioned in the back of the ticket then
also Yvonne would have claimed for her losses. In this case both the western railway and
Yvonne have their chances because the western railway can declare that the passenger needs
to check the ticket that has been issued to them in the context of the package that has been
kept in the cloakroom to check the timing of the room and the passenger also need to check if
there are any conditions related to the clock room is mentioned in the ticket. Yvonne can also
claim the losses by stating that western railway has failed to inform the passenger about the
conditions related to the clock room and now the western railway is liable to pay for all the
damages that Yvonne is facing due to the negligence of the railway.
2.4 Conclusion
The Western Railway had mentioned to its customer that it was not liable for the safety of
any package worth more than $50. Therefore, Yvonne cannot claim loss of over $3000. The
scenario would have been different if the Western Railway had involved a third party for the
safeguarding of Yvonne's contents which would have led to Yvonne in resorting to taking
recourse against the Western Railway. Lastly, if the Western Railway had failed to present
the sign on the ticket that directed the attention of Yvonne to the conditions, there would be
scope for both parties to defend its claim.
7