Commercial and Corporation Law Merchandising and Commerce

Question: Discuss about theCommercial and Corporation Lawfor Merchandising and Commerce. Answer: Introduction The law on commercial and corporation is at times reffered to as business law. This is because it is the body that pertain matters related to law and makes a direct implication to the rights and conduct of a person within the business domain[1]. On the same light, the business aspect that has been provided in the previous sentence is attached to matters of merchandising, commerce, trade and also sale. This is just a general overview of the subject. Discussion as to why Australia is one of the few jurisdictions where auditing standards have the force of law Coming into the specifics according to the question rubric, it is true that Australia as a nation is one of the few jurisdictions where there has been a realization of standards of auditing having the force of law[2]. Therefore, this task is mainly going to offer justifications as to why the nation in question is one of the few jurisdictions where the already mentioned standards in the previous sentence have the force of law. The justifications in context will also be supported by the corporation Act of 2001, which is amongst the major and most vital Acts of parliament. Australia is therefore one few jurisdiction where auditing standards have the force of law because it clearly offer a provision on a clear public interest focus. Many a times auditing standards in a number of states do not enjoy the force of law and it has been argued by most scholars that this might be the reason why focus on public interest is ignored in those states. Australia on the other hand, being one of the jurisdiction that values the interest of the public or rather its citizens, has to align the auditing standards with the force of law[3]. Other than the mentioned, the other point that can be used to offer justification with regards to the subject is that, the subject country is aiming at giving quality to the auditing standards and processes. Remember the law is like the government of the day, and thus, acts as a check on the quality of the auditing standards provided. Australias main aim in being one of the jurisdictions with regards to the context is also on ensuring that it caters for two most vital things[4]. The two as already depicted is on ensuring that there is great focus that is laid on the interest of the public and on ensuring that the auditing standards are of great or higher quality. This is aligned to the Corporation Act of 2001 under section 336[5]. This Act is documented to have been in existence since 1st July 2006. Going forward with the explanation with regards to the subject, Australia was also one of the jurisdictions where auditing standards have the force of law, so as to restore confidence among its citizens in the field of auditing. It is not easy for one to inspire confidence even in a normal context. The same directly implies to matters pertaining auditing standards[6]. Australia therefore felt that it is important for them to inspire confidence among the general public in their auditing standards. This is the third justification that has made it feature among the few jurisdictions with regards to the context. The same is largely expounded on, in section 336 of the Corporation Act in context. That is, the 2001 Corporation Act. The fourth point that directly answers the concern of the question in context which is largely mentioned in the second paragraph of the task is to avoid cases that may lead to misinterpretations of the auditing obligations[7]. The auditing obligations are the attached to auditing policies and mandates that if wrongly misinterpreted can compromise the quality of the audit as well as the state of the nation in the peoples mind. It is in this context that I peg my reasoning that, the subject state is one of the jurisdiction aligned to force of law in order to cultivate seriousness that may lead to proper interpretation of the auditing obligations. The final justification as to why Australia is one of the few jurisdictions with the view of the context can be widely explored with an explanation of the states desire to make a demonstration to the investment community and the profession in context. The government had to Act by aligning it to the force of law in order to appraise the profession that comes out of auditing standards. It is important to note that all the justifications that have been provided with regards to the question in context are mainly discussed with reference to the Act of parliament and the Corporation Act of 2001. There was a section that was depicted earlier in the explanation of how the Act in context justifies why Australia is what it is. In addition to the already mentioned section of the Corporation Act of 2001, there is also section 307A under the same Act that supports the subject of discussion. They mainly conform to the concept that, for auditing standards to be upheld and given keen consideration, there must be force of law that has to be aligned with it. This may also act as a legality procedure. It is the only way that the auditing standards will be able to serve its purpose well without having any technicalities. As mentioned in the early paragraphs, these standards are vital and influence almost everybody within the nation of Australia. That is also the main reason why key players in this particular context include even the general public. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that the concern of Australia being among the few jurisdictions where the standards of auditing have the force of law has been thoroughly addressed with a number of justifications being brought on board to cement the factual information in context. Some of the justifications provided includes, restoration of public confidence, laying focus on public interest, ensuring quality on the auditing among others. These justifications have been provided with elaborate well explained information, that is in conjunction with the Corporation Act of 2001 under section 336 and 307 A. Bibliography Brown, P. and Tarca, A., 2011. Politics, processes and the future of Australian accounting standards. Abacus, 37(3), pp.267-296. Brown, P., 2011. International Financial Reporting Standards: what are the benefits?. Accounting and business research, 41(3), pp.269-285. Chalmers, K., Godfrey, J.M. and Lynch, B., 2012. Regulatory theory insights into the past, present and future of general purpose water accounting standard setting. Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 25(6), pp.1001-1024. Chand, P. and Patel, C., 2008. Convergence and harmonization of accounting standards in the South Pacific region. Advances in Accounting, 24(1), pp.83-92. Guthrie, J.E. and Parker, L.D., 2009. A quarter of a century of performance auditing in the Australian federal public sector: A malleable masque. Abacus, 35(3), pp.302-332. Hope, O.K., Jin, J. and Kang, T., 2006. Empirical evidence on jurisdictions that adopt IFRS. Journal of international accounting research, 5(2), pp.1-20. Robins, F., 2006. Corporate governance after Sarbanes-Oxley: an Australian perspective. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 6(1), pp.34-48. Zeff, S.A. and Nobes, C.W., 2010. Commentary: Has Australia (or Any Other Jurisdiction)AdoptedIFRS? 1. Australian Accounting Review, 20(2), pp.178-184.