Samsung's dodgy business practices

(illustration:Nathan Dornacher claims the Galaxy Note 7 caused the fire)

It's bad enough that Samsung put out a product that is capable of killing its user which sparked (no pun intended) a global recall, then an apparent safe second version was given to customers, where it was found that it too can be a silent killer.

So what's the deal with Samsung?

Can they really be trusted?

Could Samsung's BP Chemicals be the responsible entity for the exploding phone?

Let's take a closer look at the business practices of this global giant.

Samsung BP Chemicals, based in Ulsan, is a 49:51 joint venture between Samsung and the UK-based BP, which was established in 1989 to produce and supply high-value-added chemical products. Its products are used in rechargeable batteries and liquid crystal display

Samsung was the subject of several complaints about child labour in its supply chain from 2012 to 2015.

One of Samsung's Chinese supplier factories, HEG, was criticized for using underage workers by China Labor Watch (CLW) in July 2014. HEG denied the charges and has sued China Labor Watch.

In July 2014, Samsung cut its contract with Shinyang Electronics after it received a complaint about the company violating child labour laws. Samsung says that its investigation turned up evidence of Shinyang using underage workers and that it severed relations immediately per its "zero tolerance" policy for child labour violations.

CLW issued a statement in August 2014 claiming that HEG employed over ten children under the age of 16 at a factory in Huizhou, Guangdong. The group said the youngest child identified was 14 years old. Samsung said that it conducted an onsite investigation of the production line that included one-on-one interviews but found no evidence of child labour being used. CLW responded that HEG had already dismissed the workers described in its statement before Samsung's investigators arrived.

CLW also claimed that HEG violated overtime rules for adult workers. CLW said a female college student was only paid her standard wage despite working four hours of overtime per day even though Chinese law requires overtime pay at 1.5 to 2.0 times standard wages.

In 2013 New Zealand news media reported a number of Samsung washing machines spontaneously caught fire.

On October 19, 2011, Samsung was fined EUR 145,727,000 for being part of a price cartel of ten companies for DRAMs which lasted from 1 July 1998 to 15 June 2002. The company received, like most of the other members of the cartel, a 10-% reduction for acknowledging the facts to investigators. Samsung had to pay 90% of their share of the settlement, but Micron avoided payment as a result of having initially revealed the case to investigators.

In Canada, during 1999, Some D-RAM micro chip manufacturers conspired to price fix, among the accused included Samsung. The price fix was investigated in 2002. A recession started to occur that year, and the price fix ended, however in 2014, the Canadian government reopened the case and investigated silently. Sufficient evidence was found and presented to Samsung and two other manufacturers during a class action lawsuit hearing. The companies agreed upon a $120 Million agreement, with $40 million as a fine, and $80 Million to be paid back to Canadians who purchased a computer, printer, MP3 player, gaming console or camera from April 1999 to June 2002

"You can even say the Samsung chairman is more powerful than the President of South Korea. 

[South] Korean people have come to think of Samsung as invincible and above the law", said Woo Suk-hoon, host of a popular economics podcast in a Washington Post article headlined "In South Korea, the Republic of Samsung", published on 9 December 2012. Critics claimed that Samsung knocked out smaller businesses, limiting choices for South Korean consumers, and sometimes colluded with fellow giants to fix prices while bullying those who investigate. Lee Jung-hee, a South Korean presidential candidate, said in a debate, "Samsung has the government in its hands. Samsung manages the legal world, the press, the academics and bureaucracy".

In 2007, former Samsung chief lawyer Kim Yong Chul claimed that he was involved in bribing and fabricating evidence on behalf of the group's chairman Lee Kun-hee and the company. Kim said that Samsung lawyers trained executives to serve as scapegoats in a "fabricated scenario" to protect Lee, even though those executives were not involved. Kim also told the media that he was "sidelined" by Samsung after he refused to pay a $3.3 million bribe to the U.S. Federal District Court judge presiding over a case where two of their executives were found guilty on charges related to memory chip price fixing. Kim revealed that the company had raised a large amount of secret funds through bank accounts illegally opened under the names of up to 1,000 Samsung executives—under his own name, four accounts were opened to manage 5 billion won.

The Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan is investigating Samsung and its local Taiwanese advertising agency for false advertising. The case was commenced after the Commission received complaints stating that the agency hired students to attack competitors of Samsung Electronics in online forums. Samsung Taiwan made an announcement on its Facebook page in which it stated that it had not interfered with any evaluation report and had stopped online marketing campaigns that constituted posting or responding to content in online forums

Source Supplied.

Two more reasons not to by Apple iPhones #friedbraingate and #concertgate

It's bad enough trying for a replacement under warranty for #bendgate from the dodgy 'geniuses' at Apple, and now two more technological 'woes' have emerged from Apple's technological crevasse.

#friedbraingate:

There are reports that suggest that Apple's new iPhone, emits twice as much radiation as Samsung's Galaxy Note 7, that of course before you get the Note to self incinerate, a fanststic feature if you're a secret agent.

Data states that the radiation SAR for the iPhone was 1.166 watts per kilogram (W/kg) compared to Samsung's Note at 0.517 W/kg.

#concertgate:

Users who purchase iPhones of the future may not be able to take photos or videos at concerts, theatre stage or movie screens.

This a vastly flawed action by  Apple, assuming that all users are pirates?

What if you need to take a photo or video for legal purposes, e.g. of a criminal action?

You then will be able to sue Apple for damages as a result.

Apple reminding people that they are nothing more than corporate slaves?

Note to self: ALL bad 'Apples' belong in the garbage can.

#friedbraingate: See (text only) article from 29 Sep 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

New iPhone reportedly emits twice as much radiation as Samsung handsets, according to South Korea

APPLE’S iPhone emits twice as much radiation as Samsung handsets, according to a new report. 

Apple’s main competitor in the smartphone market is Samsung and the two companies are constantly trying to get the edge over the other.

The South Korean tech giant recently admitted to rushing the release of its latest Galaxy Note 7 to beat Apple’s iPhone to market, which the company says contributed to an exploding battery issue that forced a global recall.

While Apple has largely got the better of the smart phone wars in the past decade, radiation emissions may be one area where Samsung takes the cake.

Apple’s iPhones and iPads had the highest electromagnetic radiation specific absorption rate, known as SAR, out of electronic devices sold in South Korea, reports tech website ZDNet.

However there is a reason to take the finding with a grain of salt because the figures have come from a state-backed study in South Korea — a government which in the past has shown a tendency to support its business sector under dubious circumstances.

Nonetheless according to the data from the country’s National Radio Research Agency the average radiation SAR for iPhones was 1.166 watts per kilogram (W/kg).

In comparison the handset released by Samsung this year showed an average SAR recording of 0.517W/kg.

In both the United States and South Korea, the SAR limit for devices is 1.6 W/kg, so the iPhone is still well under the regulated limit.

The US Federal Communication Commission says anything under 1.6 W/kg is considered perfectly safe, but notes there is still further research to be done when considering the prevalence of radiofrequency (RF) energy in an increasingly wireless world.

“Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used,” the US government body says.

There is scant evidence to suggest that consumers should be worried about the level of radiation emitted by their electronic devices such as phones, but it hasn’t stopped some companies from trying to capitalise on the largely unfounded fears.

Australian company Lif3 has produced a smartphone chip which it says is proven to reduce mobile phone radio exposure by up to 95 per cent.

Why? Because the company believes that “the mobile phone safety movement is spreading around the world”.

Whether that’s true or not depends on who you ask, but maybe Samsung wishes it were.


#concertgate: See (text only) article from 4 Jul 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Apple develops ability to kill iPhone cameras at live events

THE iPhones of the future may be a bit less fun to use at rock shows with Apple experimenting with new technology that would see them disappear from crowds at concerts and other events.

The tech giant has won a patent for a new technology that uses an infra-red signal — beamed from a concert, theatre stage or movie screen — to shut down an iPhone’s camera, disabling it from taking photos or videos.

The technology under development may be a response to gripes from artists like Adele and Jack White, miffed that fans have used their phones to broadcast shows live to thousands of other, non-paying viewers.

Start-up companies such as Yondr which turn concerts into “no phone zones” by implementing what is effectively a mandatory coat check, but for your phone, have emerged in recent years.

Among the artists to use such services include Alicia Keys, Dave Chappelle, the Lumineers and Louis C.K.

Apple’s patent filing this week indicates that video functions would only be disabled by the infra-red sensors if an iPhone is pointed toward their positions on the stage — because after all, the selfie is an inalienable right.

So users would still be able to snap photos and shoot videos of their friends in the crowd, just not of the on stage action.

Apple also suggested that the infra-red signals could be used in other scenarios to enhance what users see on their screens, providing extra information on artworks at museums or products at stores, for example.

Sports fans also have used live-streaming apps such as Periscope to broadcast from games — a practice that got temporarily banned by America’s National Football League until early this year.

The patent’s approval — as is the case with hundreds of other Apple patents — won’t necessarily mean a future rollout of the feature.

Apple 'bendgate' - Trust Apple, sure can't

Many a true blue fair dinkum  Aussie  should be familiar with the iconic advertising catch phrase "Trust British Paints.... Sure can".

Well we put a bit of a twist on this in terms of Apple's more than questionable business practices from many fronts to 

"Trust Apple.... Sure CAN'T!"

How could you trust a company that under Australian law must fix their iPhone digitiser screen, but refuses to acknowledge this is a problem despite many documented instances of this hardware failure.

Apple should be taken to the Australian courts immediately after the first refusal to fix the display.

Conversely Samsung recalled their exploding phone, maybe because of a law suit that could arise as a result of a death caused by the device.

How can you trust a company that used professional stock exchange trader's data to financially benefit the company.

How can you trust a company that played a public farce with regards to the security of its product, i.e not giving the FBI data from an alleged terrorist's iPhone, meanwhile knowing that the encryption key (to access the users data) was already in the hands of the 'authorities'.

Make no mistake about it Apple products are not secure. They have government mandated back doors in the operating system, and the encryption keys are held by the 'authorities', whoever they may be.

There are plenty more dodgy business practices by Apple that we have not mentioned where they may be looked into greater detain in another post.

We do not recommend using or even the purchase of Apple products to store your private, personal or confidential information.

See article from 11 Oct 2016 sans twitter comments by news.com.au of the headline:

Pressure mounts on Apple over ‘touch disease’

PRESSURE is mounting on Apple to acknowledge a technical problem known as touch disease that is plaguing the company’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus handsets.

A number of people have complained about the diminishing sensitivity and spotty functionality of the touchscreen on their iPhone 6 device as it gets older. With an unresponsive touchscreen the phone effectively becomes frozen and can’t be used properly.

The problem has been dubbed “touch disease” and according to the blog ifixit.org which coined the term, iPhone repair technicians are getting an increasing number of customers experiencing the annoying issue, which seems to be more common in the larger iPhone 6 Plus version.

Two lawsuits have been filed in Canada against the Californian-based tech giant over the issue while a separate nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the US in late August complaining about the fault and even accusing Apple of covering it up.

Apple has so far declined to officially acknowledge the problem but pressure is mounting on the company to do something about it.

Three more US firms have signed on to the lawsuit against Apple since it was filed, meanwhile another lawsuit has been lodged in Utah over the engineering flaw, reports Motherboard.

Publicly Apple has been silent, however court filings show the company is aware of the legal efforts being made against it.

A recent filing by Apple shows the company asked to combine the two class-action lawsuits filed in the US.

“Given the similarity between the (Utah) and (California) actions, it would unnecessarily tax judicial resources if these actions were to proceed in separate class action lawsuits,” Apple’s lawyers wrote.

Earlier in the month news.com.au wrote about touch disease and was contacted by a number of Australian customers who had experienced the defect. Some had their phones replaced by Apple while others weren’t so lucky.

 Aside from the obvious symptom of a frozen screen, touch disease is easy to diagnose because handsets will display a flickering grey bar at the top of the screen. The reason for this is that the two tiny “Touch IC” connectors, which translate the tapping and swiping of your fingers on the screen into a machine input, become slightly detached from the phone’s logic board. The result is often a progressive, and seemingly erratic, deterioration of touchscreen function.

According to AppleInsider, touch disease now accounts for 11 per cent of all Apple store repairs, eclipsing all other problems.

Hocking Stuart another corporate fraudster detrimental to people's lives

REAL estate giant Hocking Stuart says it’s doing “everything in (its) power” to prevent underquoting occurring under its brand again, after admitting to the practice in court this morning.

Consumer Affairs Victoria took legal action against the company’s Richmond office in February, claiming it breaching Australian Consumer Law by underquoting properties in and around Richmond.

 Real estate agency Hocking Stuart, Richmond, has admitted underquoting.

Hocking Stuart is expected to cop a large fine after defence barrister Tony Nolan QC told Federal Court Justice John Middleton this morning the firm would not contest the facts alleged and would only address the court on the appropriate penalty.

“We are consenting to other aspects of redress ... we are proposing to file affidavit material in respect to pecuniary penalty,” Mr Nolan said.

Underquoting is rife in Melbourne’s booming property market and gives false hope to homebuyers with budgets well below the real price expected by vendors.

Hocking Stuart’s head office said in a statement today that the company took its responsibility to accurately price its properties “very seriously” and was “disappointed” by the outcome.


“We have a range of measures in place to ensure accurate pricing of our portfolio of properties across the group, including undertaking annual audits at each office and providing regular, rigorous training to new and existing offices,” the statement said.

“Our network of 50 offices successfully helps 20,000 Victorians buy and sell their homes each year, so it is disappointing to see this outcome.

“As master franchisor, we are doing everything in our power to reduce the risk of this happening again.

“We have recently run a number of refresher courses in accurate pricing across the entire group and will continue to work with all offices to audit their sales files, ensuring this training has been embedded at all agent levels.”

In February, the company said it also “actively encourage(d)” vendors to advertise their properties with a price guide “to ensure transparency for buyers and sellers alike”.

“Under the current law, while vendors may seek the advice of agents, they are not required to disclose their reserve to agents until the day of auction and it can be higher than the advertised price if the interest is strong. This continues to be a global issue across the real estate industry.”

Consumer Affairs Victoria said it would not be commenting on the case while the court proceedings were still underway.

The consumer watchdog’s half-year report revealed in April that there were 12 major underquoting investigations underway following CAV inspections, involving franchisees from larger estate agencies as well as smaller private operations.

CAV is yet to take legal action against any other agencies.

The State Government announced proposed reforms to underquoting laws earlier this year that would see guilty agents stripped of commissions and facing fines of up to $30,000.

Underquoting is difficult to prove, as while an agent cannot advertise or quote a price that is below the seller’s reserve price, the agent’s own estimate or a genuine offer, there is no obligation on a seller to tell the agent their reserve price before auction.

In a hot market, it can be higher than the advertised price.

The matter will return to the Federal Court on August 15.

heraldsun.com.au  4 Aug 2016

They are just the 'unlucky' ones that got caught out.

The whole industry is rife with this kind of behaviour, and needs a 'shake-up', but no doubt this will never happen, as there is too much corruption in the industry and in the government.

Facebook Messenger low key encryption to rejoice over?

Catch phrase words from the I.T. world like privacy, anonymity, encryption, VPN have filtered their way through to the common person, the Neanderthal smacking the delete key 15 times when realistically the computer comprehended the aggravated assault on the delete key the first time around.

Ever since governments have made it publicly clear that they will launch an assault on people's online privacy, anonymity, I.T. specialists have tried to create new ways of securing communications via this vast expanse called the World Wide Web.

Incidentally 'governments' had access to that information all along, just it wasn't all that 'legal'.

The new excuse for governments to justify monitoring your every move on the internet, your every electronic purchase and your every telephone interaction is an apparently new evil called 'terrorism'.

Maybe along the same line of thinking all roads and motor vehicles should be banned/controlled/limited from use by the general populous as 'terrorists' use those items as well.

Hang on a minute... Terrorists eat food! It might be a good idea to lace food with poison in order to kill terrorists. Oops it's already being done, with products from McDonald's, KFC, Burger King/Hungry Jacks Donut King, Krispy Kreme etc... Phew. Now we can sleep better.

From face value many data storage warehouse giants the likes of Microsoft, Google and Apple officially oppose government control/censorship/monitoring but behind the scenes operations are quite different.

Operating systems given to the masses from the US global I.T giants have deliberate backdoors so that government agencies can gain full access to the device of the user they are targeting.

Facebook a relative newcomer in the I.T. industry has become a global giant via its social media platform.

Since communication via the medium we call the internet is not secure, private nor anonymous Facebook has assured users that communication via its medium will be secure via low key roll-out of a new encryption layer.

"Viva la Facebook!!!" shout the (alleged) 'terrorists' followed by happy angry gunfire.

Should the wannabe terrorists now safely post their half baked 'terror' plots that look even worse than a Wile E Coyote stunt gone wrong against the infidels on Facebook?

One alleged 'terrorist' in Australia was going to stuff a kangaroo full of explosives. Seriously?

What the masses are not told is that any encryption technology emanating from uncle Sam, the 'keys' MUST be handed over to 'authorities'.

If you have put together a great encryption package, and live in the land of the free, if you are putting your product out into the market place, you MUST have over the 'key'.

If dragging you through the courts does not make you surrender the key, the destruction of you and your family is next on the government's agenda.


It might still be more private for il terrorista the use the good ol' fashioned  method of carrier pigeon.

See article from 4 October 2016 by wired.com of the headline:

You Can All Finally Encrypt Facebook Messenger, So Do It

Last spring WhatsApp pushed out code adding a new layer of security to a billion users’ apps, creating the largest end-to-end encrypted messaging network in history. Now WhatsApp’s parent company Facebook has finally given people who use its other massively popular chat app the chance to catch up.

A Facebook spokesperson tells WIRED the company just finished rolling out “Secret Conversations” to all 900 million Facebook Messenger users in the past few weeks. The opt-in feature allows users to encrypt their messages so that no one can read them except the two people on either end of a conversation—not even Facebook or law enforcement or intelligence agencies. “Your messages are already secure, but Secret Conversations are encrypted from one device to another,” states a description in the app when users initiate their first encrypted conversation.

While the company’s software updates for iOS and Android haven’t explicitly mentioned the encryption feature, anyone who updates their Messenger app will now find the “secret” option on the top right of the “new message” screen. The feature also allows senders to choose a Snapchat-style expiration time for messages, ranging from five seconds to one day. Only users who have updated the app can send or receive encrypted, time-sensitive messages, so be sure to update now.

Secret Conversations uses the Signal encryption system, which has a glowing reputation in the security community. It was developed by the nonprofit Open Whisper Systems, which first implemented the encryption layer in its own Signal app before partnering with other companies to include the protocol. Facebook first announced the new security mechanism and tested it with beta users in July. Google’s recently launched Allo messenger also includes the encryption option.

Facebook Messenger’s new layer of encryption has to be enabled manually for every conversation, rather than being switched on by default, as it is in the Signal app or in WhatsApp. That decision may be in part a compromise designed to help Facebook avoid legal and political difficulties; WhatsApp’s default encryption, for instance, has already put its parent company in an uncomfortable spot at least once, when Brazilian authorities arrested a Facebook executive in the country for failing to help police decrypt WhatsApp messages sent by criminal suspects in a drug trafficking case. But the opt-in move has also drawn the scorn of privacy advocates, like this tweet from ACLU technologist Chris Soghoian when Facebook announced Secret Conversations:

Opt-in or not, Facebook’s new feature brings strong, dead-simple encryption to hundreds of millions more users. In combination with end-to-end encryption’s spread to other ultra-popular messaging services, foiling surveillance has never been easier.

Queensland police officer faces court on child sex charges

A Queensland policeman has been remanded in custody after facing court on a string of "historical" child sex allegations.

The 46-year-old constable, from the southern region, appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Friday charged with one count of rape and 11 counts of indecent treatment of a child.

After prosecutors unsuccessfully moved for the court to be closed, it was heard the allegations levelled against the man dated back four to six years.

His lawyer David Jones, in applying for bail, characterised the crown case as involving "some grooming" of two complainants when he was in a relationship, which has since ended, with their mother.

He also said the prosecution relied strongly on evidence drawn from a "largely untested" technology in their case against the policeman but didn't specify exactly what it was.

"There are serious allegations made against him," magistrate Elizabeth Hall noted.

Police prosecutor Josh Kelly objected to bail on the basis that he may interfere with witnesses and given the seriousness of the charges.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been suspended from the police service while the allegations against him are dealt with.

The bail hearing will return to court on October 12.

brisbanetimes.com.au  7 Oct 2016

Another corrupt copper.

Let's see how 'justice' is served for the victims...

The unlawful signature of Victoria's Sheriff Brendan Facey?

Many a person has been adversely effected by an entity called the 'Sheriff of Victoria' under the legal name of Brendan Facey.

One must not rely on the Rupert Murdoch media empire to inform the masses that this is done so unlawfully, under fraudulent action, deception, coercion and extortion with threats of violence and incarceration.

This is also endorsed/supported/perpetuated by a business called CCV (Civic Compliance Victoria), ABN 68 122 448 122, and Victoria Police ABN 63 446 481 493.

Their (CCV's) standard response to your legal obligation (ask questions, as people in court do) is "Just pay up".

Many people's first correspondence from the (alleged) ' Sheriff of Victoria may come in the form of a notice, as a result of not paying a fine from the unlawful and illegal 'Infringements Court'.

Many people have mistaken this document as an actual 'outstanding' warrant to the amount claimed in the paperwork.

The Sheriff's Office of Victoria has sent out paperwork to people claiming outstanding warrants containing a logo of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

This suggests that the Sheriff's Office comes under the banner of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

What people MUST know is that the Sheriff of Victoria is supposed to be an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and MUST be appointed as such in accordance with the law.

The position must be gazetted, and the appointment of the person must be in the lawful government gazette.

There is no gazetted appointment for the person Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria, as required by law.

The Sheriff's Office of Victoria has also sent out paperwork to people claiming outstanding warrants containing the logo of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

So when did the jurisdiction change and where/when was this gazetted?

When asked of the Sheriff's Office to produce the alleged outstanding warrant the response obtained was that none exist.

That's right non ever existed.

So let's make this clear one more time.

There are no lawful warrants emanating from a place of business called the Sheriff's Office ABN 32 790 228 959.

So what's a 'warrant' supposed to look like?

Well according to their own laws, and not any 'conspiracy theories', forms directions etc must be documented and filled out according the rules specified.

This is what a 'warrant' is supposed to look like sans red comments: 

See form in attached link - 

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/what-warrant-form-looks-like.html

So where's the fraud in the letter from Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria.

So in this first letter from a person called Brendan Facey  as the Sheriff of Victoria from the Sheriff's Office Victoria the claim comes to the unsuspecting customer.

In this document you may notice a "Yours sincerely",  signature, a name and a title of Office.

Seems pretty legitimate right?

Take another look.

The signature is a digitised (electronic) signature that is stored on a computer and pasted into the document.

There is no 'lawful' wet ink signature from that person.

The document is a fraud.

If anyone has obtained a 'wet ink' signature from the person Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria, please post this in the comments section.

Please do not post Brendan Facey's signature and position as Director of Infringement  Management and Enforcement Services, as this is not what we require and has already been covered in the Corporate Australia blog post of the title:

Exposing Corporate Criminals - Victoria's sheriff - Brendan Facey in the link:

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/exposing-corporate-criminals-victorias.html

See the following document of the with regards to the lawfulness of an electronic signature, citing case law of the title 

Court rules that uploaded electronic signature did not download a loan guarantee

The convenience of executing legal documentation with electronic signatures must be carefully weighed against issues of enforceability and security. In this update, we explain the decision in Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd v Crocker [2015] NSWSC 1907, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that a company director was not bound by a guarantee that (apparently) bore his electronic signature.

Key messages

The key messages from this case are:

• An executor – being the person who physically or electronically applies a signature – is not implicitly authorised to use another person’s electronic signature if it was applied without that person’s knowledge or consent. This is similar to the situation where an executor forges another person’s handwritten signature.
• In this case, a director was not liable in circumstances where his failure to change a default password enabled another person to access and supposedly apply his electronic signature. However, it is possible that a person could demonstrate an intention to authorise another to apply their electronic signature if they took active steps to permit access to the means of applying that electronic signature (by, for example, circulating their password).
• Accordingly, where a contract is to be executed by an individual using an electronic signature, the accepting party can mitigate risk by considering whether additional steps should be taken to verify that the individual consented to their signature being applied. For example, in addition to having the execution witnessed, the individual could be required to confirm their execution by email.
• Courts will be unwilling to find that an unauthorised execution was ratified unless there is clear evidence that the person purportedly bound saw the document, appreciated its salient features, and then failed to take any remedial action. In this case, the court was sympathetic to the view that a person should not have to read each and every email and attachment in their inbox.

Background

Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd (Lender) sold building materials to IDH Modular Pty Ltd (Borrower) under the terms of a trading credit agreement that incorporated a director’s guarantee and indemnity. The document was seemingly executed by the Borrower’s three directors, including Mr Crocker (Guarantor), and witnessed by one of the Borrower’s employees.

In the months before execution, one of the Borrower’s directors (Brooks) set up a HelloFax electronic signature account that enabled the directors to remotely upload and apply their signatures to documents. Each time a director’s signature was applied, that director would receive a confirmation email attaching the executed document. The Guarantor, who worked interstate, received his login details for the account directly from Brooks and never changed his password. He soon uploaded his signature to the account.

When the Lender attempted to enforce the guarantee in the amount of nearly $890,000, the Guarantor claimed he had not executed nor authorised the guarantee’s execution on his behalf, nor had he any knowledge that he had been signed up to such a substantial liability. At trial, the parties accepted that the Guarantor had not executed the document himself – rather, an unidentified third person using his account had uploaded and applied their own signature purporting to be the Guarantor’s.

The Lender, whom at the time had no knowledge of these circumstances, argued that the guarantee should be enforced on two bases:

• By failing to change his default password, the Guarantor had impliedly authorised Brooks or any other person who received the login details from Brooks to execute the document on the Guarantor’s behalf (actual authorisation). Alternatively, even if there was not actual authorisation, the Guarantor had represented such authority to the Lender (ostensible authorisation).
• Even if the Guarantor did not actually authorise or represent authorisation, a number of circumstances (principally being sent a confirmation email) indicated that he had ratified the execution.

Decision

McCallum J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales J ruled in the Guarantor’s favour. We summarise the judgment’s key points below.

Authority

McCallum J acknowledged that an implied agency relationship could arise if the Guarantor placed another person in the situation where, by ‘the ordinary uses of mankind’, it could be understood that the person signing represented and acted for the Guarantor. However, the Guarantor’s mere omission to change his password did not demonstrate an intention to authorise anyone else to operate the account on his behalf. Such use would be a misuse – not an ‘ordinary use’ capable of amounting to implied authorisation. This conclusion was further bolstered by the fact that the Guarantor was never actually advised by the Lender, Borrower or other directors that he was required to provide a guarantee under the borrowing arrangement (even when the Borrower had previously provided a similar guarantee to the Lender).

The Court also rejected analogies to the situation in Pacific Carriers Limited v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35, in which the High Court found that a bank was bound by letters of indemnity that its officer had executed without the bank’s authority. In that case:

The representation of authority came from a combination of features of [the bank officer’s] presentation to the outside world, all attributable to the fact that Pacific was dealing with a bank, with all its institutional trappings.

Not only was the Lender here dealing with an individual lacking the ‘institutional trappings’ of a large company, the Guarantor had made no representations that another person was authorised or ‘held out’ as being able to bind him to the guarantee because, in the Lender’s mind, the Guarantor himself had signed it.

Ratification

Instead, the critical factor was whether the Guarantor had notice that he had been personally committed to the guarantee. The Lender’s principal submission was that the Guarantor received a confirmation email attaching the document after it was executed. However, Justice McCallum considered that this was a ‘slender basis’ to prove ratification because:

• While it was accepted that the confirmation email was sent to the Guarantor’s email address, the Lender failed to prove that the Guarantor had received and read the email, opened the attached document, and made himself aware of its salient features.
• It was not clear on its face that the attached document contained a guarantee because it was labelled ‘credit application’.

The Lender was ordered to pay the Guarantor’s costs.

Source : HallandWilcox

You can download the full 36 page document contained in the link:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2WXNOdkZMV2ZyeDQ/view?usp=sharing

Austraila's corrupt Bureau of Statistics changing the economy with falsified data

How can ANYONE trust the business called the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics)???

They threatened the masses with unlawful fines of $180 per day for each and every day the census form has not been handed in from the deadline of 23 September 2016

The business called the ABS then extended their own deadline until 30 September 2016, also putting the business at risk of financial hardship as a result of missing out on the $180 per day 'fine' from the uneducated masses. A very bad business strategy.

The ABS sold your data for a 'profit' for $41,000,000 last year.

They even asked you to falsely put a sex on your 'person', which at law is asexual.

See definition of natural person in the Corporations Act 2001, Section 64b (2)

The SAME definition as written in a letter from the (alleged) Sheriff of Victoria, Brendan Facey, but that's another separate dozen posts.

Natural person

             (2)  A natural person is connected with a corporation if, and only if, the corporation:

                     (a)  is a trustee of a trust under which the person is capable of benefiting; or

                     (b)  is engaged by the person under a contract for services; or

                     (c)  acts as agent for the person in any transaction or dealing; or

                     (d)  is an attorney of the person under a power of attorney; or

                     (e)  has appointed the person as the corporation's attorney under a power of attorney; or

                      (f)  is given financial, business or legal advice by the person in the performance of the functions attaching to the person's professional capacity. 

Ref:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s64b.html

Only you as a man/woman have the sexual gender of male/female.

They've been falsifying unemployment data for years. 

Why they are not even a lawfully established government department (as per the lawful 'government' called  'Commonwealth of Australia - in line with a document called the Australian Constitution) as described in the Census and Statistics Act of 1905.

Don't worry about any other Act's, they're not in place (enacted) lawfully.

Will the people of Australia see any criminal actions against the people in charge of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, namely

• Michael McCormack - Minister of small business or

• David Kalisch - Australian Statistician

We say probably NOT!

Let's put aside whether or not the minister Michael McCormack is in office under a lawfully enacted instrument.

Note: Australia's criminal elite administrators of this penal colony are untouchable by the law.

If you have been harmed by this fraudulent action you may need to seek advice to take action against the people mentioned above.

See article from the 6 October 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

First home buyer error that may have changed history 

THE Australian Bureau of Statistics is having a no good, very bad year.

The latest admission is that it has been publishing incorrect first home buyer statistics.

It comes after a huge controversy over the bungled census, and a furore over rubbery unemployment statistics. This latest disaster could be the most serious one yet.

On Monday, the bureau announced it was revising its first home buyer statistics. Not too many people seemed to notice. After all, this was the second time recently they’ve revised them.

The first time was in 2015. The stats kept showing the number of first home buyers was falling to very low levels, so when the ABS announced that banks had not been giving them all the data, it made sense.

The ABS revised the data so the share of first home buyers rose (from 14.6 to 17.3 per cent in November 2014, for example). That was plausible enough and nobody objected. They kept on putting out data that lined up with those new, higher numbers.

Until this week. They now admit those new numbers were totally wrong, and the real numbers were, in fact, closer to the original numbers than the changed ones.

This small and seemingly technical change could have been very important.

THE ELECTION MALCOLM TURNBULL ONLY JUST WON

In the six months leading up to the election, the ABS reported first home buyers had 14.4 per cent of the market on average. It now admits the true numbers were at 13.2 per cent.

Housing affordability was a big issue in the election. Labor’s flagship policies were to remove negative gearing and cut capital gains tax concessions. Both of these were controversial, but they would have probably caused house prices to be lower.

During the election campaign, it appeared first home buyers were getting more of the houses on the market than they really were.

The record low share of first home buyers, in the history of data collection, is 12.8 per cent back in 2004.
In March 2016, the numbers were 12.9 per cent — just 0.1 per cent off the record. But, we didn’t know that at the time.

Instead, the data was showing the share of first home buyers at 14.3 per cent in March. In that same month, Malcolm Turnbull set his party on course for a double dissolution election, which he eventually won by the narrowest of margins.

If the data on first home buyers had been more eye-catching, would Labor’s election platform have seemed more urgent, more important? Could the dodgy data have affected the election outcome?

We will never know.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics admits its housing data have been wrong. Picture: Brendon Thorne/Getty ImagesSource:Getty Images

I am by no means suggesting the ABS is trying to affect election outcomes. Collecting data is hard, especially when your agency has been stretched desperately by years of Budget cuts.

It is harder still when you rely on an intermediary to collect data for you, as the ABS do with the housing finance data. It is collected by the bank regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and passed on. Mistakes will always happen and the ABS deserves kudos for finding and correcting them.

But first home buyers locked out of the market might wonder if finding that mistake even a few months earlier would have saved them from many more years stuck in rental properties.

Statistics matter to people’s lives — governments of all political stripes should make sure they provide the resources necessary for the ABS to do its job properly.