Chapter 5 shifts the focus from climate risks to the business opportunities emerging from a warming world. The chapter proposes three pillars of sustainable business opportunity: early adopters that gain advantage through innovation and transition readiness, green markets that capitalize on emerging demand for low-carbon goods and services, and climate solutions that provide technologies or services addressing mitigation and adaptation challenges. Additional avenues, such as resilient infrastructure, climate risk consulting, and insurance services, illustrate the breadth of new markets generated by climate pressures. The chapter concludes that firms willing to invest in transformation will be best positioned to thrive as temperatures continue to rise.

Chapter 3 analyzes the diverse and interconnected risks that climate change poses to multinational corporations. It distinguishes among four primary risk categories: physical, transition, reputational, and litigation. Physical risk stems from climate-related disasters and long-term environmental degradation that disrupt operations and supply chains. Transition risk arises from shifting policies, technologies, and market preferences as economies decarbonize. Reputational risk emerges when stakeholders judge firms’ climate performance, while litigation risk reflects growing legal accountability for environmental damage and disclosure failures. The chapter also highlights the indirect effects of climate change on human health, macroeconomic stability, and social and political conditions in host countries. These cascading impacts amplify uncertainty and reshape global business environments. Together, the discussion situates climate change as a multidimensional systemic risk, establishing the analytical foundation for understanding firms’ adaptive and strategic responses in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 7 turns to the question of diversity from a health perspective, with a focus on scientific uncertainty and regulatory experimentation. This is about the effectiveness of EU intervention, the ability of the EU, as a functionally driven risk regulator, to select the best health intervention, in terms of reduced mortality and morbidity. It investigates how the principle of precaution is used by the Court to grant a certain leeway to the national and the EU legislature. Notably, the principle is applied not only to uncertainty about the existence of health risks, but also to uncertainty about the effects of policy interventions. The chapter then examines two legal devices designed to preserve the regulatory autonomy of Member States: subsidiarity and minimum harmonisation. Through three case studies – tobacco plain packaging, the ban on tobacco for oral use and front-of-pack nutrition labelling – the chapter highlights the contradiction between the need for regulatory diversity and the need for market uniformity, and the resultant tensions with the principles of conferral and subsidiarity.

Agreements made with full capacity and free consent may nevertheless be void, on account of illegality. The rationale for the illegality defence is that the law, as a whole, would be internally inconsistent if binding contracts could be used to undermine its various other regulatory objectives.1 To take an obvious example, if there is an agreement to commit a murder for hire, the law would not enforce such an agreement, given the law's policy objective of protecting life. Likewise, enforcing agreements between co-conspirators to defraud a third party would undermine the regulatory objective of preventing fraud.

While the illegality defence can serve to promote regulatory objectives, it can potentially lead to injustice. It may result in the enrichment of a party who is complicit in the illegality, and can impose financial losses that are far in excess of the fines imposed or compensation provided for under the specific legal regime that would have been infringed by the illegal conduct. These complexities have led two common law jurisdictions2 to conclude that the appropriate solution is to confer discretion on courts to determine how the private law of contract should respond to illegality (or other disfavoured conduct) in any individual case. The Contract Act does not take this approach: it lays down a binary rule to the effect that all illegal contracts will be void.

Section 23 is the key provision in the Contract Act on illegality.3 Under that provision, if the ‘object or consideration’ of an agreement is unlawful, the agreement is ‘void’. In addition to the general rule set out in Section 23, four further provisions – Sections 26, 27, 28 and 30 – define particular types of agreements that are declared unenforceable on account of their content.

The introduction of co-management is often associated with recognition and allocation of property rights. This chapter therefore provides definitions of the concepts of property, property rights and property regimes. Systems informed by economic theory to provide ‘user rights’ are reviewed in relation to collaborative governance, including Transferable Quota systems and Territorial User Rights for Fishing. Given that rights may be contested and not realised in practice, the chapter goes on to consider the pursuit and realisation of justice through co-management, differentiating between procedural, distribution and recognition justice. Insights from the application of a human rights based approach to natural resource governance and implications for co-management are then identified.

Chapter 3 investigates the EU’s competence to regulate unhealthy lifestyles. Two main rationales for EU intervention in the field can be found in the TFEU. The first, historically and conceptually predominant, is related to the market. EU regulation contributes to the establishment of the EU internal market, by addressing the externalities of Member State lifestyle policies and their restrictive effect on free movement, of goods in particular. This rationale corresponds to broad and functional powers to eliminate trade barriers between Member States, via the EU’s fundamental free movement provisions, so-called negative integration, and the harmonisation of health standard at the EU level, positive integration. The second rationale concerns health as a standalone value, independent of the economic dimension of unhealthy lifestyles. For this rationale, the EU has been granted a much more limited competence. This explains why, in legal terms, EU law on unhealthy lifestyles remains a form of economic and market regulation, with a key role for Article 114 TFEU.

This chapter proposes ways of becoming more aligned with the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and community members through pre-service and professional experiences. It also outlines a range of strategies and opportunities that seeks to make sense of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and education studies for participants in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs through corequisite, experiential learning opportunities in educational and community settings. The chapter also discusses some of the challenges and dilemmas that may be encountered in the process of developing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander professional experience frameworks within teacher education programs.

Fraud and misrepresentation can vitiate a contract and render it voidable. The underlying principle is that a party should be permitted to avoid a contract if its consent was based on an error which was induced by the counterparty. Fraud and misrepresentation are frequently invoked vitiating factors and this topic is, therefore, of considerable practical importance. Although fraud and misrepresentation cases inevitably involve heavily contested questions of fact, they can also raise complex legal issues. The Indian law on this topic is surprisingly unsettled, including on fairly fundamental points such as monetary remedies.

In assessing this subject, four preliminary points should be borne in mind.

• • First, the defence of fraud or misrepresentation is concerned with misstatements, silence or other culpable conduct prior to the formation of a contract. It is not concerned with actions or omissions of the parties at the stage of contractual performance.

• • Second, this defence is distinct from the defence of non est factum which is concerned with misleading conduct regarding the content of a written contract. When non est factum applies, the contract is void (as opposed to voidable).

• • Third, in addition to furnishing grounds for rescission, fraud and misrepresentation can also generate claims for damages in tort and (arguably) claims for monetary and other relief under Section 19 of the Contract Act.

• • Fourth, in the case of contracts with the government or a governmental entity, cases of fraudulent misrepresentation at the pre-contractual stage are often dealt with by blacklisting the misrepresenting agency. Such action is taken in terms of tender conditions, and in adjudicating upon such actions recourse is often had to the tender conditions as well as applicable administrative law.