适用范围:根据《2001年公司法》，Peter的180至183条不符合董事应有的职责。他没有完全披露，也没有坦率地允许利益相关者以适当的方式对任何考虑做出明智的判断，这适用于法案第191条(Veasey, 2001)。这可以从James Hardie Industries NV对ASIC (2010) 274 ALR 85的案例中得到应用。在这种情况下，已经明确提到需要遵守一贯披露制度，因为它的目的是提高资本市场的完整性和效率。这进一步确保了市场拥有完整的信息，但彼得似乎违反了这一制度。结论:彼得显然违反了职责。
Issue: Breach of director’s duty is the issue identified here and the focus is to find out whether such a breach has occurred from the perspective of Peter or not. Law: Corporations Act 2001 is applicable here which requires that a director of a company needs to exercise their position based powers and consider discharging their duties not only with diligence but also with care (Blumberg, 2004). This has been depicted in Section 180 of the Act. Such a duty has a subjectivity to the rule of business judgment in which it is required that directors make judgment of business in good faith, with appropriate reason, not have material individual interest in the judgment based subject matter, inform over the judgment related subject matter to the range that they are believed in a reasonable manner to have appropriateness and offer rationality in the judgment that it is in the corporations best interest.
Application: It can be said from the case that Peter under the Corporations Act 2001, sections from 180 to 183 did not comply with the duties of the director as he should have. He did not make complete disclosures and frank ones for allowing the stakeholders to make informed judgments over any consideration in an appropriate manner and this is applicable under section 191 of the Act (Veasey, 2001). This can be made applicable from the case of James Hardie Industries NV vs ASIC (2010), 274 ALR 85. In this case it has been clearly mentioned that the regime of consistent disclosure needs to be abided for as it has been designed for enhancing capital markets integrity and efficiency. This further ensures that market has full information but Peter seems to have violated this regime. Conclusion: The duties were clearly breached by Peter.