INDIVIDAL ASSIGNMENT
(20% - max word 2000 Due Date Week 10)
Submit three answer from the tutorial questions discussed each week after each the lecture.
Assessment Criteria
Written
presentation 20
Identify the issues of the prob-lem 20
Explain the relevant law relating to the problem 20
Discuss the potential legal ar-guments relating to the problem 20
Summarise a balanced conclu-sion to the issues of the problem 20
TOTAL
100
TOTAL
/20%

Criteria High Distinction
80% - Distinction
70%- 79% Credit
60-69% Pass
50-59% Fail
0-49%
Written
presentation At all times, the workbook was clearly structured, logical, and un-derstandable with references. At all times,
the workbook was clearly struc-tured, logical, and understand-able. Most of the time,
the workbook was clearly struc-tured, logical, and understand-able. Some of the time,
the workbook was clearly structured, log-ical, and under-standable. At no times was the workbook clearly struc-tured, logical, and understand-able.
Identify the issues of the problem All of the issues are clearly and accurately de-tailed with refer-ence to cases with similar facts. All of the issues are clearly and accurately de-tailed. All of the issues are clearly and accurately sum-marised. Some of the issues are clear-ly and accurate-ly outlined in brief. The issues are not clearly or ac-curately outlined.
Explain the relevant law relating to the problem All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately de-tailed, and the Act and related cases are dis-cussed. All of the rele-vant law is clear-ly and accurately detailed. Most of the rele-vant law is clear-ly and accurately summarised. Some of the relevant law is clearly and ac-curately out-lined in brief. The relevant law is not clearly or accurately out-lined.
Discuss the potential le-gal argu-ments relat-ing to the problem All the legal ar-guments are clear-ly and accurately detailed, and there is a synthesis with the relevant law. All the legal ar-guments are clearly and accu-rately detailed. Most of legal arguments are clearly and accu-rately summa-rised. Some of the legal arguments are clearly and accurately out-lined in brief. The legal argu-ments are not clearly or accu-rately outlined.
Summarise a balanced conclusion to the issues of the problem A balanced deci-sion is accurately detailed with ref-erence to alterna-tive outcomes. A balanced deci-sion is accurately detailed. A balanced deci-sion is accurately summarised in summary format. A balanced de-cision is accu-rately outlined in brief. A balanced deci-sion is not dis-cussed.
Question 8.5 from the text:
Booth, a merchant banker, paid his friend Hains, a director of several Australian listed companies, $18,000 for “inside information” which he intended to use in determining how to invest his client’s funds. Insider trading is a criminal offence pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 100G. Hains has since failed to provide any information to Booth and has indicated that he has no intention of ever doing so.
Advise Booth as to whether he can recover the $18,000 already paid.
Questions to consider in answering Question 8.5:
What is the purpose of the contract?
Is it contrary to public policy?
Does it fall within one of the classes of contract illegal at common law?
Will Booth be able to recover his money?
Are the parties in “in pari delicto”?
Question 5.7 from the text:
In 1957 Nestlé had a promotion under which it sold hit singles for 1s 6d plus three Nestlé chocolate wrappers. The copyright holder sued Nestlé for royalties based on the “ordinary retail selling price” of the goods under s 8 of the Copyright Act 1986 (UK). Nestlé argued that the royalty should be based on 1s 6d only. The copyright holder accordingly alleged that the royalty should be based on 1s 6d plus the value of the wrappers since they comprised part of the consideration for the record.
Who was right?
Questions to consider for Question 5.7 from the text:
Is there consideration present?
If there is consideration present, does it have some value that the law will recognise?
Does the consideration need to be adequate as well as have some value?
See Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd where Lord Sommerville remarked that (at 114) “…a contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn.”