RECENT ASSIGNMENT

HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2021
Unit Code HI6027
Unit Title Business and Corporate Law
Assessment Type Group Assignment
Assessment Title Case Studies on Contract Law and Corporations Law
Purpose of the assessment (with
ULO Mapping) The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving three case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case. In this Group Assignments, students are required to:
- Critically analyse the main features of the Australian Legal System and the foundations of company law. (ULO 1)
- Critically analyse the basic principles of Contract, Tort, and privacy law and apply them in resolving legal issues arising in commercial transactions. (ULO 2) - Research and advocate the appropriateness of the different types of business structures and the legal environment in which they operate and their advantages and disadvantages in various commercial contexts. (ULO 4)
Weight 40% of the total assessments
Total Marks 40%
Word limit Group Written Report of maximum 2,000 words
Due Date Week 10
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 the AGLC style.
HI6027 Business and Corporate Law Group Assignment T1 2021
Assignment Specifications
Purpose:
The Group Assignment aims to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving three case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case.
Students are to form groups, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 students per group. The assignment consists of a 2,000-word written report.
Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.
Group Report
1. This group assignment consists of 3 parts. Part A is a question on Contract Law, and Part B and Part C are questions involving Corporations Law. All questions must be answered.
2. Question A is worth 20 marks, while Question B and Question C are worth 10 marks each.
3. The total word limit for the group report is 2,000 words (+/- 10% allowed)
? Word limit for Question A – 1,000 words
? Word limit for Question B – 600 words
? Word limit for Question C – 400 words
Word count limits are strictly enforced. A deduction of two (2) marks will be imposed for every 50 words over the word count for either part of the report. Anything over the word count will not be read by your lecturer.
4. The total word count for the report as well as each part must be clearly written on the cover sheet of the assignment. A paper will not be marked if the word counts are not written on the cover sheet.
5. The group report is worth 40% of total marks in this unit.
Important Reminders:
? You must form your groups by self-enrolment in Blackboard. Please refer to the document “Group Assessment Self Enrolment Tutorial” that has been posted in Blackboard (under announcements and also in the “Assessments” folder). This document will assist you with the process of selfenrolling in a group to undertake an assessment task in Blackboard Ultra.
? All group report submissions must be de done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.
? You must attach as the official Holmes Institute cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.
? The Group report 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.
? Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).
? All reports are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A copy of the AGLC has been posted in the Week 2 tutorial folder. You may also download a copy for free via this link:
https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3181325/AGLC4-with-Bookmarks-1.pdf
? 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.
? All assignments are expected to strictly follow Holmes Institute’s Academic Conduct and Integrity
Policy and Procedures. A copy of the Policy is available on the Holmes Institute home page. (About Holmes Policies) This policy is also explained in your Student Handbook.
? Plagiarism and contract cheating in any form will not be tolerated and will have severe consequences for the groups found committing the same, including receiving zero (0) for the entire assignment and possible failure in the unit.
? Any group assignment that is found to contain fake or bogus references or references that are clearly irrelevant to the subject matter of the assignment will receive an automatic zero (0) mark.
? IMPORTANT: Identification of individual work. To ensure that all students participate equitably in the group assignment and that students are responsible for the academic integrity of all components of the assignment, each group must complete the following table which identifies which student/students are responsible for the various sections of the assignment:
Assignment section Student/Students
This table needs to be completed and submitted with the assignment as it is a compulsory component required before any grading is undertaken.
Adapted Harvard Referencing
Holmes has now implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing:
1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access to the source's content for lecturers and markers.
2. The Reference list should be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled: References.
3. It should include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z alphabetically by author surname. In addition, it MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited
For example:
P Hawking, B McCarthy, A Stein (2004), Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of
Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf
4. All assignments will require additional in-text reference details, which will consist of the surname of the author/authors or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of content, the paragraph where the content can be found.
For example:
-The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence strategies (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4)).-
Non - Adherence to Referencing Guidelines
Where students do not follow the above guidelines:
1. Students who submit assignments that do not comply with the guidelines may be required to resubmit their assignments or incur penalties for inadequate referencing.
2. Late penalties will apply per day after a student or group has been notified of resubmission requirements.
Students whose citations are identified as fictitious will be reported for academic misconduct.
Assignment Questions
Part A: Contracts Law Question (20 marks) ? Read the Contracts Law question below.
? In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer your chosen question using the IRAC method.
? Your answer must be supported by relevant Australian law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 6 genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.
? The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.
? In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.
Engaged couple Marina and Mark were the winners of a reality TV show involving racing other couples around Australia. They decided to use some of the winnings on their wedding. They checked out a number of venues and finally decided on the Grand Ballroom at the Hotel Grand Inquisitor. Marina and Mark signed a ‘wedding package’ contract with the hotel, which provided for the following:
? Hire of ballroom - $15,000
? Catering (excluding cake) - $9,000
? Wedding cake (two-tier) - $500
? Honeymoon suite (one night) - $400
? Total - $24,900
The wedding reception was a happy event. However, when it came to the time to reveal and cut the cake, Marina and Mark were shocked to learn that earlier in the day a hotel waitress had clumsily dropped the specially baked wedding cake, and because there was no time to prepare another, the two-tier cake provided by the hotel was in fact two sponge cakes purchased from the local cake shop. Despite their disappointment and at the urging of the guests, Marina and Mark went ahead with the cake cutting and the cake was eaten.
When the reception finally ended, Marina and Mark retired to the honeymoon suite. However, they soon discovered that the hotel was carrying out around-the-clock renovations to the nearby presidential suite to cater for an overseas dignitary who had decided to stay at the hotel. These renovations made the honeymoon suite vibrate, made incessant noise all night and led to dust entering the air-conditioning. Marina and Mark gave up on the room at 1:00 a.m. and went and checked into another hotel. On the way out of the hotel, Mark told the night manager that the night had been a disaster and that the hotel ‘would not be getting a cent more out of us’. They also said they would be talking to their lawyer in the morning.
Advise Marina and Mark:
(a) Whether they were entitled to cancel the contract as they purported to do (8 marks);
(b) What damages (if any) they are entitled to recover from the hotel (6 marks);
(c) Whether they are able to recover the $5,000 advance that they paid the hotel. (6 marks)
Consider the position under common law contract principles only. DO NOT answer this question based on Statute Law (such as the Australian Consumer Law.
Part B: Corporations Law question (10 marks)
? Read the questions below on Corporations Law, specifically Agency.
? In 600 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the chosen given question.
? A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant Australian legal references are required for this part of the report. Examples of relevant references for this question include the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Australian cases; and Australian law textbooks.
? The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.
? In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.
RJ Booker, a real estate firm based in Milsons Point, Sydney, emailed Mimi. Mimi had a friend working at RJ booker and she told her that she wanted to sell her unit. The unit was located at the 19th floor of a modern apartment building located in Milson’s Point, almost beside the entrance to Luna Park.
Gustavo, the franchisee and principal of RJ Booker in Milson’s Point, asked Mimi if the firm can be her exclusive agents in the sale of her unit. Gustavo explained that if they located a qualified buyer, RJ Booker would be entitled to the standard Real Estate industry commission rates for agents. Currently, this was about 3 percent of the purchase price. Mimi agreed and signed the agency contract.
Within five days, Gustavo called Mimi and told her that he had found a buyer for her unit, Alisa. Alisa had told Gustavo that she was ready to buy Mimi’s unit “as per contract” and “depending on the result of a property inspection”. The very next day, Mimi received an email offer from a third party and she immediately accepted it without informing RJ Booker. When Gustavo found out, he insisted that Mimi should pay them a commission based on the selling price of the unit, stating that they did their job and found a good buyer for the unit. Mimi told Gustavo to get lost and that she will not pay their commission.
Advice Gustavo on whether Mimi was legally right in not wanting to pay RJ Booker a commission on the sale of her unit.
Part C: Corporations Law question (10 marks)
? Read the questions below on Corporations Law, specifically on Companies and Incorporated Associations.
? In 400 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the chosen given question.
? A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant Australian legal references are required for this part of the report. Examples of relevant references for this question include the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); the Australian and Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) website (www.asic.gov.au), the website of the Australian Business Register’s (ABR) website (www.abr.gov.au).
? The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.
? In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.
Gary Olsen, known affectionately as “Gazza” or Gazzarooney” by his mates, is the Group Head for Corporate Finance in a boutique investment bank called “DA Bank Limited”. There is a term in Gazza’s employment contract, which he signed on 15 February 2020, providing as follows:
Prohibition on client contact. In the event that your employment with DA Bank Limited ceases for whatever reason and howsoever caused, you explicitly agree and undertake not to contact clients of DA Bank through whatever means. This includes contact by phone, email, mail or any other common means of communication. This prohibition will last for 3 years upon the cessation of your employment with the bank.
Gazza resigns from DA Bank on 1 March 2021. He is later recruited by his good mate Colin Taggart, who is the Chief Executive Officer of a merchant bank called “Tag Bank Limited”. Upon joining, Colin immediately appoints Gazza to the same position that he held with DA Bank. Gazza then starts calling some clients of DA Bank that he had dealt with when he worked there.
DA Bank now wants to take legal action against Gazza. Explain to DA Bank the grounds, if any, on which it can take legal action to stop Gazza from contacting the bank’s clients.
Marking Rubric
Group Report
Part A Question
Total marks available: 20 marks Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Identification of material facts involved in problem question
(4 marks) 3.5 to 4 marks
Completely
identifies all relevant facts of case 2.5 to 3 marks
Identifies most of the relevant facts of case 2 to 2.25 marks
Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts Below 2 marks
Does not identify relevant facts of case
Identification of legal issues / legal question and
relevant law
(4 marks) 3.5 to 4 marks
Correctly identifies all relevant legal issues and are stated in the form of questions.
Correctly identifies relevant and appropriate legal rules and case law, and states them in the form of statements 2.5 to 3 marks
Issues correctly identified, but may contain extraneous information and are not stated in the form of questions.
Legal rules and case law correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and are not in the form of statements. 2 to 2.25 marks
Issues are not completely identified.
Legal rules and case law not correctly identified. Below 2 marks
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.
Thorough yet succinct application of law to material
facts
(6 marks) 5 to 6 marks
Correctly identifies facts; wellreasoned discussion relating facts to the rules and case law. 3.5 to 4.5 marks
Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned. 2.5 to 3 marks
Facts not correctly identified. Analysis incoherent. Below 2 marks
Scant to no analysis.
Citation and referencing
(including minimum number of
references)
(3 marks) 2.5 to 3 marks
Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, in-text and in reference list. 1.75 to 2.25
marks
Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in formatting of in-text citations and reference list 1 to 1.5 marks
Does not have minimum of 6 references or contains errors in formatting of intext citations and reference list Below 1 mark
No referencing either in-text or in reference
list; or cites
inappropriate references; or all references not cited in the correct format.
Professional quality including language use and writing
style
(3 marks) 2.5 to 3 marks
Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. 1.75 to 2.25
marks
Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding. 1 to 1.5 marks
Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding.
Sloppy. Below 1 mark
Reflects no real effort.
Deductions
Excess word count
(1 mark for every
25 words over)
Under the word limit (1 mark for every 25 word under)
Lacks minimum of 6 references (1 mark for every missing reference)
of 11
Part B and Part C Questions
Total marks available: 10 marks per question Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Identification of material facts involved in problem question
(2 marks) 1.75 to 2 marks
Completely
identifies all relevant facts of case 1.5 mark
Identifies most of the relevant facts of case 1 mark
Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts Below 1 mark
Does not identify relevant facts of case
Identification of legal issues / legal question and
relevant law
(2 marks) 1.75 to 2 marks
Correctly identifies all relevant legal issues and are stated in the form of questions.
Correctly identifies relevant and appropriate legal rules and case law, and states them in the form of statements 1.5 mark
Issues correctly identified, but may contain extraneous information and are not stated in the form of questions.
Legal rules and case law correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and are not in the form of statements. 1 mark
Issues are not completely identified.
Legal rules and case law not correctly identified. Below 1 mark
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.
Thorough yet succinct application of law to material
facts
(3 marks) 2.5 to 3 marks
Correctly identifies facts; wellreasoned discussion relating facts to the rules and case law. 1.75 to 2.25
marks
Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned. 1 to 1.5 marks
Facts not correctly identified. Analysis incoherent. Below 1 mark
Scant to no analysis.
Citation and referencing
(including minimum number of
references)
(2 marks) 1.75 to 2 marks
Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, in-text and in reference list. 1.5 mark
Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in formatting of in-text citations and reference list 1 mark
Does not have minimum of 6 references or contains errors in formatting of intext citations and reference list Below 1 mark
No referencing either in-text or in reference
list; or cites
inappropriate references; or all references not cited in the correct format.
of 11
Professional quality including language use and writing
style
(1 mark)
1 mark
Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. 0.75 mark
Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding. 0.5 mark
Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding.
Sloppy. Below 0.5 mark
Reflects no real effort.
Deductions
Excess word count
(1 mark for every
25 words over)
Under the word limit (1 mark for every 25 word under)
Lacks minimum of 3 references (1 mark for every missing reference)