HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2019
Unit Code HA2022
Unit Title Business Law
Assessment Type Group assignment
Assessment Title Written Report and Presentation
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO
Mapping) Students are required to resolve two case problem type questions from a list of case problem questions provided from the prescribed textbook using IRAC method, based on topics discussed in lectures.
Case problem type questions include:
• Contract Law
• The Law of Torts and Negligence
• Applications of Negligence to Business
Weight 30% of the total assessments
Total Marks 20 marks – Written report and 10 marks for presentation
Word limit Not more than 2000 words
Due Date Friday Week 10 – 11.59pm
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
INSERT UNIT CODE & NAME AND ASSIGNMENT NAME
Assignment 1 Specifications
Purpose:
This assignment aims at ensuring that students have familiarised themselves with their chosen case problem type questions and are able to apply the legal knowledge to factual situations, through written and/or oral communication, to achieve a reasoned conclusion. The ability to identify the relevant legal issues from a factual situation and the application of statute and case law involves the use of problem solving and decision making skills.
Details:
Topics and presentation schedule:
Please organise yourselves into groups of not more than 5 students and not less than 3 students.
The assignment consists of 2 parts;
1. Written report – worth 20% and must be submitted - Friday Week 10 at 11.59pm.
• This group assignment consists of 2 parts. Part A is a case study on Contract law, and Part B is a question involving Civil Liability (the Law of Torts and Negligence). Both questions must be answered.
• The total word limit for the group report is 2,000 words. Each part has a maximum word count of 1,000 words.
• The total word count for the report as well as each part must be clearly written on the cover sheet of the assignment. Your assignment will not be marked if the word counts are not written on the cover sheet.
PART A: Contract Law Questions
1. Refer to the prescribed textbook: Gibson, A, Business Law, 10th edition (Pearson, Sydney: 2017).
2. From Part 3 –Law of Contracts, Chapters 7 to 15 on Contract Law, refer to the “Tutorial Questions” at the end of the chapters and choose one (1) problem case question. Note: it must be a case problem-type question and not a short answer question.
3. You must send your lecturer the number of your question and the page on which is appears for approval. Do not starts work on a question without obtaining your lecturer’s prior approval.
4. In not more than 1,000 words, answer your chosen legal case question using the IRAC method.
5. Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 3 references are required for this part of the report.
6. Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part A question.
PART B: The Law of Torts and Negligence Questions
1. Refer to the prescribed textbook: Gibson, A, Business Law, 10th edition (Pearson, Sydney: 2017).
2. Refer to Part 2 – Civil Liability; Chapter 4 (Civil Liability: The Law of Torts and Negligence) and Chapter 5 (Applications of Negligence to Business).
3. Refer to the “Tutorial Questions” at the end of the chapters and choose one (1) problem case question. Note: it must be a case problem-type question and not a short answer question.
4. You must send your lecturer the number of your question and the page on which it appears for approval. Does not start work on a question without obtaining your lecturer’s prior approval.
5. In not more than 1,000 words, answer your chosen legal case question using the IRAC method.
6. Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 3 references are required for this part of the report.
7. Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part B question.
Assignment structure is to be written as a report format. It must include;
• Cover page
• Executive summary
• Table of contents
• Section headings
• Paragraphing
• Page numbers
• Reference list at the end of the report
2. Group Presentation – worth 10% and will be presented / submitted on Friday Week 10 at 11.59pm. Strict adherence to the 10 minute limit is expected.
• Present and discuss the summary of your report (part A and B) in 10 minutes.
• The Presentation will be done in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more appropriate. Whether in-class or video presentation, all members must present. The group will be marked down if not all members present.
• Video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.
• A video presentation consists of both images and audio. For this reason, a plain Power Point presentation showing slides even with accompanying voice recording is not considered a video and, hence, not allowed.
Important Reminders:
Lecturer approval of chosen case:
1. You must email your lecturer your list of group members and chosen case by week 4.
2. You must obtain approval by email from your lecturer of your group and chosen case before starting work on it. You must NOT start work on your group assignment until your lecturer approves your
group and case. Please note: failure to obtain lecturer approval will result in a failing mark for the entire group for this assignment.
Submission:
1. All group report submissions must be done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.
2. Please fill in the “Rubric Group Report” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.
3. Each group must email a ‘’Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group Assignment” sheet to their lecturer (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates).
4. Non-submission of either the group report or video presentation link (if a group is doing a video) on Blackboard/SafeAssign (if doing a video presentation) is equivalent to non-submission, which will merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the group assignment.
5. This is a group assignment and is meant to be worked on in groups. Groups of less than 3 and more 5 members will receive a penalty of 10 marks (50%).
6. Reports must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard and show a similarity percentage figure. Any group report that does not show a SafeAssign similarity percentage will not be marked and be required to re-submit.
7. Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).
8. Assignments are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with a generally accepted system of citation (ex, Harvard System). A properly referenced assignment showing in-text citation is critical to passing and obtaining a good mark in the group assignment.
SafeAssign similarity percentage:
1. Plagiarism in any form, shape or manner is unacceptable under any circumstances and will be dealt with according to Institute policy on plagiarism.
2. In general, for written reports, a SafeAssign similarity percentage of 25% or below is acceptable. Regardless of the similarity figure, all group reports must use in-text citation and observe proper referencing rules.
Marking criteria
Marking criteria Weighting
Written Report
Identification of legal issue/s 3%
Understanding of relevant law 4%
Application 7%
Conclusion 2%
Organisation or structure 2%
Referencing 2%
Total 20%
Presentation
Discussion on the content of the topic 3%
Overall presentation clarity 3%
Overall impression 4%
Total 10%
TOTAL Weight 30%
Assessment Feedback to the Student:
Marking Rubric – Written report
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Identification of legal issue/s (3 marks) Accurately and succinctly identified all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (3 marks)
Identification of all of the issues and subissues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem.
(2.5 marks)
Identification of most but not all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem.
(2 marks)
Identification of some of the issues and subissues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (1.5 mark) Failure to identify any of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (0.5 mark)
Understanding of relevant law
(4 marks)
Identification of all of the relevant law (or ethical theory and concepts) to resolve the legal problem (ethical problem)
(4 marks)
Identification of largely all relevant law (or ethical theory and concepts) to resolve the legal problem
(ethical problem) (3.5 marks) Identification of most of the relevant law (or ethical theory and concepts) to resolve the legal problem
(ethical problem) (3 marks) Identification of some of the relevant law (or ethical theory and concepts) to resolve the legal problem
(ethical problem) (2 marks) Very limited identification of the relevant law (or ethical theory and concepts) to resolve the legal problem
(ethical problem) (1 mark)
Application
(7 marks)
Excellence in application of the law (ethical theory) to the question. Arguments are excellent in
terms of logical
development, clarity and persuasiveness. (7 marks) High standard of application of the law (ethical theory) to the question. Logical arguments developed which are generally clear and persuasive. (6 marks) Reasonable standard of application in applying the law (ethical theory) to the
question. Some logical
arguments developed but some arguments lack clarity and persuasiveness.
(5 marks)
Satisfactory standard in applying the law (ethical theory) to the question. A basic level of logical
arguments developed but arguments
often lack clarity and persuasiveness. (4 marks) Failure to demonstrate a satisfactory standard in applying the law (ethical theory) to the question. Logical arguments not developed arguments unclear and not persuasive. (2 marks)
Conclusion
(2 marks)
Accurate, clear and concise links are established
between the issue, law, application and the conclusion. (2 marks) Accurate and clear links are established
between the issue, law, application and the conclusion.
(1.75 marks) Accurate links can be identified, with
some difficulty,
between the issue, law, application and the conclusion (1.5 marks) Links are established
between the issue, law, application and the conclusion, but they are ambiguous. (1 mark) No links are established
between the issue, law, application and the conclusion.
(0.5 mark)
Organisation or structure (2 marks) Report is exceptionally structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (2 marks) Report is well structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.75 marks) Report is
somewhat
structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.5 marks) Report is structured with some clarity, and use of some paragraphs and subheadings. (1 mark) Poorly presented. Report is not structured with any clarity, and does not use of paragraphs and subheadings.
(0.5 mark)
Referencing (2 marks) Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 6 relevant references were
used from good sources. All intext referencing done correctly and relevant. (2 marks) Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 5 relevant references were used from good sources. All in-text referencing done correctly and relevant.
(1.75marks)
Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 4 relevant references were used from good sources. Most in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1.5 marks) Limited attempt at formatting references. References largely unrelated to the topic area. At least 3 references were provided. Most
in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1 mark) Poorly presented, no apparent structure. No use of Harvard referencing style.
References were unrelated to the topic area. Only 0 r 1 relevant reference given
( 0.5 mark)
Marking Rubric - Presentation
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Discussion on the content of the topic
(3 marks) Excellent discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful at all times. (3 marks) Very Good discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful most of the time (2.5 marks) Good discussion from most speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful some of the time (2 marks) Satisfactory discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and provided no insight (1.5 marks) Little or no discussion from speakers. Discussion not relevant to the topic being discussed. (1 mark)
Overall presentation clarity
(3 marks) Excellent use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were covered equally. (3 marks) Very good use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were covered equally. (2.5 marks) Good use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were mostly covered equally. (2 marks) Satisfactory use of visual aids. Presentation structured whereby most topics were covered (1.5 marks) No visual aids used. Presentation had no structure and most topics were not covered. (1 mark)
Overall impression (4 marks) Outstanding impression left on audience. Each speaker had a thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed equally. Exceptionally professional delivery and audience engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes
(4 marks) Very good impression left on audience. Each speaker had a somewhat thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat
equally. Very professional delivery and audience engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes
(3.5 marks) Good
impression left on audience. Each speaker had a somewhat thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat equally. Professional delivery and audience engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of
10 minutes
(3 marks)
Satisfactory impression left on audience. Most speakers had some knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat equally.
Somewhat
professional delivery and audience engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of
10 minutes
(2 marks) No impression left on audience. Most speakers had little knowledge of the areas discussed and did not contribute equally. No professional delivery or audience engagement. No adherence to the time constraints of
10 minutes
(1 mark)
GET ANSWERS / LIVE CHAT