Jack, Nolan, Andy, Helen and Erica were the directors of Gemsales Pty Ltd, a  company engaged in the business of importing and supplying jewellery as  wholesalers to the local market.  The company decided that as the market was becoming more competitive it needed  to expand its business as it felt with increased volumes of sales it would be able to  lower its prices and be more competitive. In order to do so it obtained a $4 million  dollar loan from the Friendly Bank Ltd. $3 million was used to buy more stock and $1  million was used to buy a large new warehouse and showrooms from Traders Pty  Ltd.  Andy was not at the meeting that had made these decisions as he was in hospital  recovering from a serious accident. Erica, as was her usual custom, had not  attended the meeting but signed the requisite documentation agreeing to the  expansion of the business and the getting of the loan. Helen who attended, said she  did not know if she agreed and abstained from voting. Jack and Nolan both voted to  go ahead with the expansion and the getting of the loan.  At about this time Nolan has established contact with Mark, who was setting up a  new business as a retailer of jewellery. Mark was looking for reliable suppliers, but  said he would not deal with Gemsales Pty Ltd as he did not like Jack, the Managing  Director. Not wishing to miss out on such a lucrative business opportunity, Nolan  arranged to set up his own business as a jewellery wholesaler and a contract was entered into between Mark and Nolan for the supply of jewellery.  Six months later, Nolan resigned as a director. At the same time it was clear the  company had over-extended itself and was insolvent and could not pay the interest  on its loans.  It also became clear that Nolan was a major shareholder in Traders Pty Ltd and the  other directors were unaware of this at the time of the purchase of the warehouse  and showrooms. Furthermore, Nolan had been approaching other established  customers of Gemsales Pty Ltd and had secured orders for his own business.  Advise as to the liability of the parties both under common law and the Corporations Law. QUESTION 2  “Ben Buckley and Associates” is a talent agency that represents “big name acts”  during their tours of Australia. Ben, the principal of the agency, is extremely pleased  to have secured the contract to act as exclusive agent for a huge American  entertainer named “Slick Parsley”. “Slick”, as he is known to most people, is due to  tour Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in a week’s time on his “Fresh Spices” tour.  This contract is a huge career break for Ben, so he has decided to make sure he  does everything himself, both for the kudos, and to ensure nothing is left to chance.  Ben therefore goes to great lengths to ensure all stationary, business cards and  promotional material clearly displays the statement “Ben Buckley, exclusive agent to  Slick Parsley in Australia”. He has even had this statement included in the extensive  television advertising for the tour. Ben also includes as a term of the contract that he  will be the “exclusive” agent for Slick Parsley while he is in Australia.  Ben, however, is horrified to learn that Slick has two dogs he wishes to take with him  on tour. “Jekyll” and “Hyde” are a pair of miniature maltese/poodle crosses that Slick  simply cannot bear to be apart from. Ben realises that the dogs need to accompany  Slick otherwise he will fret too much to perform. Ben however hates dogs and cannot  bear the thought of touching or having anything to do with them. He therefore hires  renown Sydney “Dog Whisperer” Rusty Wagtail to take care of the two dogs while  Slick is on tour.  Rusty’s contract with Ben states that Rusty will take care of “all matters dog related”  such as feeding, grooming and accommodating. It is also clear that Ben remains  responsible for all other “dog” matters not specifically related to the day-to-day  management of the dogs such as customs declarations and the like.  Rusty subsequently flies to the USA to assist Slick with the two dogs. He is surprised  however to see there are actually three dogs, the third being another female MaltiPoo named “Nessie”. Slick tells Rusty that the other two dogs are in love with Nessie  and cannot travel without her. There is no time to get in touch with Ben for guidance,  so Rusty therefore makes what he considers to be an “executive decision” to board  all three dogs onto Slick’s luxury private jet. He tells Slick that he will “take care of it”  when they get to Sydney. All three dogs fly off to Australia with Slick and Rusty.  Slick’s plane gets into some engine trouble just off the New South Wales coast,  necessitating a diversion away from Sydney and a subsequent emergency landing at  the small Byron Bay airport. The plane lands and skids to a halt near the perimeter  fence, and all are ordered to evacuate the plane immediately. The crew ensure Slick  evacuates safely, and the three dogs are left for Rusty to take care of. He hurriedly  grabs all three in his arms and jumps down the emergency shute. Then, in a selfless  act of care for the animals, Rusty hurriedly runs away from the plane and throws all  three animals over the perimeter fence to safety.  After medical checks and other such requirements, all are free to go. Customs clears  two of the dogs due to their prior approvals. Nessie, however, is still at large  somewhere behind the perimeter fence. Rusty finds her, shaken but in otherwise  good health, and once again makes an “executive decision” to simply pick Nessie up and take her to the accommodation with the other two dogs. He tells Slick that  “everything is taken care of”. He does not inform Ben about any of this.  Two days later, however, an ardent fan takes a movie with his video recorder  attached to a drone of the three dogs in Slicks plush rented harbour side apartment.  Word gets out that one of the dogs is in the country illegally. Slick is prosecuted and  expelled from Australia before he could do any concerts, thus disappointing  thousands of eager fans. The three dogs are kept in quarantine pending destruction.  Explain how the law of agency in Australia may impact on the legal positions of Ben,  Slick, Rusty, Jekyll, Hyde, Nessie and “the fans”. In your answer, refer to relevant  legislation and cases where appropriate.  

Submit a 3-page analysis of the case study. In your analysis, do the following:

• Identify two of French and Raven’s bases of power in the case study, and explain how leaders can use these bases of power to exert influence. 
• Explain how you might use your knowledge of French and Raven’s theory to resolve one of the problems presented in the case study. Justify your response.

There have been many stories throughout history of leaders who have been corrupted by their power. The very definition of leadership as “a process by which an individual influences the group to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6) implies the power to exert influence. Leaders must exert power in order to lead, but they must also strive to understand the complexities of power. Research by French and Raven (1959) and by others (Burns, 1976; Neck & Manz, 1994) provides insight on the types, or bases, of power available to a leader, the process of choosing among those bases, and the motivations for leaders’ choices (Northouse, 2016, p. 379). Recent researchers (Barbuto & Warneke, 2014; Vevere, 2014) also explore the effectiveness of using individual bases of power in particular situations and the effects certain bases of powers have on leaders and those they lead. Armed with this information, leaders can avoid utilizing certain bases of power when the choice may lead to negative consequences. They can instead choose to wield power in ways that will foster organizational success. Understanding the bases also gives both leaders and followers insight into situations they observe and difficult interpersonal interactions they negotiate.

To prepare for this Assignment, consider Case Study 7.1, “His Team Gets the Best Assignments” on pages 150–151 of Northouse (2016).

Assume that you are the Charge Nurse of a team with one LPN and one nursing assistant on the 7A-3P shift at an acute care hospital. The three of you are responsible for providing total care to 10 patients. Prioritize the following list of 10 things you need to accomplish this morning. Use a 1 for the first thing you will do and a 10 for the last.

________

Check MAR against the orders

________

Listen to night shift report from 0700-0720

________

Perform walking rounds to assess the night shift report and to introduce yourself to patients.

________

Hang four (4) 0900 IV medications

________

Set up the schedule for breaks and lunch among your team members

________

Give the 0845 pre-op on patient going to surgery at 0900

________

Pass the 0830 breakfast trays

________

Read the charts on new admissions that you are responsible for on the unit

________

Check 0600 blood glucose results for 0730 insulin administration

________

Consult with the interdisciplinary healthcare team to develop and/or revise patient plans of care

Now, create an initial discussion posting that provides the rationale for how your prioritized your day in relation to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Your initial posting must be completed by Wednesday, 3/17/2021 by 11:59 pm. On another day, you must respond to two of your classmates by Sunday, March 21/2021 by 11:59 pm.

The internet and new media platforms, such as YouTube, have increasingly been utilized by local and state public health departments to communicate information and health messages to large audiences. For this assignment, you will review a series of videos on YouTube playlists of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. View at least two videos by each of these health departments.

In a paper of 1,250-1,500 words, critique how successfully the public health department has communicated information and health messages in each video. Include the following in your critique:

1. A description of the health issue that is the focus of the video.
2. A critique of whether this new media platform was leveraged to its full potential.
3. An evaluation of whether the communication and health messages were engaging and had the potential to mobilize the community, including building constituency relations, engendering strategic partnerships, or engaging community organizations and leaders.
4. An assessment of the cultural appropriateness of the message with regard to the intended audience, including how cultural competence is important in communicating public health content.
5. An overall judgment on whether the communication and health message was effective for the intended audience. Include any recommendations or suggestions to improve the health communication or health message. Use the examples and evidence from the research literature to support your recommendations.

Incorporate five resources to support your critique.