HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER
EDUCATION
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1, 2021 (Mid -Term)
Unit Code HA2022
Unit Title Business Law
Assessment Type Group Assignment and Video Group Presentation
Assessment Title Business Law Group Report and Video Group 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.
• Apply the legal knowledge to factual situations, through written and/or oral communication, to achieve a reasoned conclusion. (ULO3)
• Develop 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. (ULO4) Legal Case Problem Type Questions includes:
• Contract Law
• The Law of Torts and Negligence
• Applications of Negligence to Business cases
Weight 25% of the total assessments
Total Marks 25 Marks: 15 marks for group report and 10 marks for video group presentation
Word limit Not more than 2,000 words
Due Date Week 12 - Friday 11th June,2021 – 11.59pm -
Group Report and Group Video presentation with power-point slides presentation.
Submission Guidelines All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due-date along with a completed Holmes Group 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 adapted Harvard referencing style.
HA2022 Business Law - Group Assignment - T1 2021 – MID TERM UNIT
1
Adapted Harvard Referencing
Holmes has now implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing:
1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources which 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 alphabetically AZ by author surname. In addition, it MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source.
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 contents, 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 which 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 a resubmission requirement.
• Students whose citations are fake will be reported for academic misconduct
Group Assignment Specifications
Purpose:
This group 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. Students need to demonstrate the ability to identify the relevant legal issues from a factual situation and the application of statute and case law involving the use of problem solving and decision-making skills.
Details:
Topics and Presentation:
Please organise yourselves into groups of 4 students or less by self-enrolling in Blackboard.
The group assignment report consists of two (2) parts Part A and Part B:
1. Group Report – worth 15% and must be submitted by Friday of Week 12 at 11.59pm.
• 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.
Questions
PART A: Contract Law
• Select one of the following questions for Part A, from the 11th edition of the recommended textbook - Business Law by Andy Gibson & Sarah Osborne.
• 11th edition of Business Law - Chapter 5 – Q 2,3,4 or 6 (p.253-254)
1) In not more than 1,000 words, answer the above legal case question using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion) method.
2) 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 three scholarly, genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.
3) 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
For Part B, you must select one case from either Case 1, Case 2 or Case 3 for your report.
Case 1 – Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 45
• a short summary of the case can be found in the 11th edition of Business Law on p.333, and the full transcript of the High Court case can be found on
https://staging.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1956/057-MUMMERY_v._IRVINGS_PTY._LTD.--(1956)_96_CLR_99.html
Or;
Case 2 – Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards [2005] NSWCA 380
• A short summary of the case can be found in the 11th edition Business Law on p. 367 and the full transcript of the NSW court of appeal case can be found on
https://jade.io/article/126005?at.hl=Consolidated+Broken+Hill+Ltd+v+Edwards
Or;
Case 3 – Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris [1997] HCA 39
• A short summary of the case can be found in the 11th edition Business Law on p. 361 and the full transcript of the High Court case can be found on https://jade.io/article/68006
1. In not more than 1,000 words, provide a summary report of the above legal case question using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion) method.
2. 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 three scholarly, genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.
3. Your references must be listed in a References list at the end of the Part B question.
2. Group Video Presentation – worth 10% must include a Power-Point Slide presentation which should be submitted by Friday 11th June, 2021 - Week 12 by 11.59pm.
The group video presentation time limit is 10 minutes.
Students will need to present and discuss the summary of your report (part A and B) in 10 minutes.
• The Presentation will be done in one coherent video presentation. All group members must present. The group will be marked down if not all members present.
• A Power-Point slide presentation must be submitted on Blackboard.
Assignment Structure is to be written as a report format. It must include:
• Cover Page
• Table of Contents
• Part A – Contracts Law question
• Part B – Torts and Negligence question
• Paragraphing
• Page numbers
• Reference List at the end of the report
Important Reminders:
Unit Co-ordinator approval of chosen case:
1. You must email the Unit Co-ordinator your list of group members and chosen case.
2. You must obtain approval by email from the Unit Co-ordinator of your group and chosen case before starting work on it. You must NOT start work on your group assignment until your group case is approved. Please Note: failure to obtain approval will affect the mark for the entire group for this assignment assessment.
Submission Requirements:
1. All group report submissions must be done online and run through Safe-Assign. 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 on Blackboard/SafeAssign is equivalent to nonsubmission, 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 more than 4 members will receive a penalty of 50% from the total final mark unless an exemption is given by the Unit Coordinator.
6. Reports must be submitted via Safe-Assign 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, Australian Guide to Legal Citation or Harvard System). A properly referenced assignment showing in-text citation is critical to passing and obtaining a good mark in the group assignment.
Safe-Assign 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 the correct in-text citation and observe proper referencing rules.
Identification of individual work:
1. To ensure that all students participate equitably in the group assignment and that all 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. Please also refer to the group peer assessment document.
Marking Criteria Weighting (%)
Group Report
- Identification of material facts involved in problem question 3%
- Identification of legal issues / legal question and relevant law 3%
- Thorough yet succinct application of law to material facts 4%
- Citation and referencing 3%
- Professional quality 2%
Group Video Presentation
- Group member participation and division of parts equally 1.5%
- Depth of analysis and evidence of understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking is clearly shown in the power-point slides
- Level of professionalism of the group video presentation 3%
- Overall clarity of presentation 1.5%
TOTAL Weight 25%
Marking Rubric
Group Report
Total Marks available: 15 marks Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Identification of material facts involved in problem question
3 marks 2.55 to 3 marks
Completely identifies all relevant facts of case 2.1 to 2.5 marks
Identifies most of the relevant facts of case 1.5 to 2 marks
Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts Below 1.5 marks
Does not identify relevant facts of case
Identification of legal issues / legal question and
relevant law
3 marks 2.55 to 3 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 2.1 to 2.5 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. 1.5 to 2 marks
Issues are not completely identified.
Legal rules and case law not correctly identified. Below 1.5 marks
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.
Thorough yet succinct application of law to material
facts
4 marks 3.25 to 4 marks
Correctly identifies facts; wellreasoned discussion relating facts to the rules and case law. 2.55 to 3.2 marks
Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned. 2 to 2.50 marks
Facts not correctly identified. Analysis incoherent. Below 2 marks
No analysis.
Citation and referencing (including minimum number of
references)
3 marks 2.55 to 3 marks
Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, in-text and in reference list. 2.1 to 2.5 marks
Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in
formatting of in-
text citations and reference list 1.5 to 2 marks
Does not have minimum of 6 references or contains errors in formatting of in text citations and reference list Below 1.5 marks
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
2 marks
1.75 to 2 marks
Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors. 1.25 to 1.70 marks
Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding. 0.8 to 1 mark
Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding.
Sloppy. 0 to 0.75 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)
Group Video Presentation
Total marks available: 10 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Group member
participation and
division of parts
1.5 marks 1.05 to 1.5 marks
All group members presented and presentation is equally divided among group members; presentation shows an excellent level of effort 0.8 to 1 mark
All group
members presented but presentation is not
equally divided among group members; presentation shows a high level of effort 0.6 to 0.75 mark
Not all group members presented or presentation is not
equally divided among group members; but presentation shows average effort. 0 to 0.5 mark
Not all group members presented and presentation does not show real effort.
Depth of analysis and evidence of understanding of the issues presented and
critical thinking in
answers
4 marks 3.75 to 4 marks
Displays in-depth analysis and evidence of strong understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers. 3 to 3.5 marks
Displays strong analysis and understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers. 2 to 2.75 marks
Shows acceptable
level of analysis
and
understanding of the issues. 0 to 1.75 marks
Does not show acceptable level of analysis and understanding of the issues; merely reads from prepared answers.
Level of professionalism in presentation (including members in appropriate business attire; and
use of visual aids)
3 marks 2.75 to 3 marks
High-level of professionalism in presentation 2 to 2.5 marks
Above average
level of
professionalism in presentation 1.5 to 1.75 marks
Average level of professionalism in presentation 0 to 1.25 marks
Below average level of professionalism in
presentation
Overall clarity of
presentation
1.5 marks 1.05 to 1.5 marks
Extremely clear, succinct presentation 0.8 to 1 mark
High level of clarity and succinctness of presentation 0.6 to 0.75 mark
Average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation 0 to 0.5 mark
Below average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation
Page
Academic Integrity
Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study-Skills link on Blackboard.
Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Table 1: Six Categories of Academic Integrity Breaches
Plagiarism Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
Collusion Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
Copying Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
Impersonation Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheating Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsification Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.
Source: INQAAHE, 2020
GET ANSWERS / LIVE CHAT