Search

Joint Ventures are often used by parties in commercial enterprises where parties seek to achieve a common goal. One issue which is increasingly contentious is the extent to which, if any, joint venture parties owe each other fiduciary obligations. This paper refutes, as a dangerous heresy, the idea that joint venture relationships are discrete legal relationships that are inherently fiduciary in nature. The majority of self-styled "joint ventures" are, invariably, nothing more in legal terms than contracts. If parties are going to be bound by fiduciary duties, over and above the contractual duties they owe each other, this will only be so by virtue of the particular arrangement they have entered into which, on a thorough examination of the facts, is found to require each party to give unstinting loyalty to the other. Recent Australian case law bears this out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 introduced a New Zealand prohibition on "unconscionable conduct" in trade. Previously, the law on unconscionable conduct was found in the equitable doctrine of unconscionable bargain. This article describes how New Zealand law has moved away from equitable unconscionability with this new prohibition. This article critically analyses some of the legal, social and economic justifications for introducing the prohibition, finding that some of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's justifications are not persuasive. The s 7 prohibition is based strongly on an equivalent section in the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It is argued that long-standing doctrinal issues with Australia's prohibition provided a strong basis for New Zealand to pursue a different standard. Finally, this article explores the "unfair commercial practices" doctrines in the United States and European Union through the lens of anticonsumer practices in digital marketplaces. The conclusion is that the unfair commercial practices doctrine captures a wider range of anti-consumer conduct than does unconscionable conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia has always relied heavily upon foreign sources of investment and financing and has in the past tended to draw mainly upon British, American and Japanese investment. In recent decades, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have played an increasingly important role in the Australian economy with a rising level of investment taking place. Chinese SOEs have been more heavily involved in investments into larger Australian investment projects, such as in mining and infrastructure. Australia has seen an increase in the number of Chinese state-owned companies acquiring substantial domestic assets; this may continue following the ratification of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2015. Although Chinese SOEs operating in foreign countries such as Australia are required to comply with local corporate governance laws and principles, they also retain their unique Chinese corporate governance values and culture which they have inherited through their parent companies and from China itself. In Australia, there has been an ongoing debate over Chinese investment, with the business community being particularly supportive of such investment. Driven largely by the business community, this debate has been relatively narrow and has not explored the likely impact of Chinese SOEs and their subsidiaries upon the shape of corporate governance in countries in which they invest. This article seeks to examine the legal contours of Chinese-controlled investment in Australia with a view to acquiring a more informed understanding of the impact of Chinese SOEs upon the Australian legal landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]