Business law – BBAL201
Term 3 2016
Business law
Group Assignment and Presentation
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this assignment, students will be able to:
- Illustrate the principles relating to the law of torts; and - Explain the principles relating to contract law.
Due date: Week 5.1
1. Create a group of 3 students.
2. The Lecturer will select a case below to find, read, understand, summarise, and present.
3. The length of the written assignment is to be approximately 2100 Words. (Each member of the group must write 700 words).
4. The presentation slides must be in the IRAC method. Maximum 9 slides, and three short points per slide.
5. Each member of the group is to present the following part of the IRAC method as listed below (I= issues and facts; Relevant laws and principles; A= Arguments of the parties and Analysis, C= conclusion and court outcome).
(Member 1: Issues and Relevant law,
Member 2: Arguments raised by parties and Analysis
Member 3: Conclusion, Court outcome and Role of relevant court)
Note: Although each group member’s task is clearly allocated and they are required to present their part, but each member is expected to know the full case and may be asked question from any part of the case.
6. The task is worth a total of 30% of your final marks.

Case Options (lecturer approval required)
1. Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)
2. ANZ v Westpac (1988)
3. Tabcorp Holdings v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009)
4. Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991)
5. Koompahtoo Local Aborginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007)
6. Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail authority of NSW (1982)
7. Zhu v Treasurer of the State of NSW (2004)
8. Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986)
9. Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)
10. Louth v Diprose (1992)
11. San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister Administering Environmental, Planning and Assessment Act (1986)
12. Walton Stores (Interstate) v Maher (1988)
13. Imbree v McNeilly (2008)
14. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
15. Agar v Hyde (2000)
16. Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998)
17. Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
18. Nagel v Rottnest Island Authority (1993)
19. Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988)
20. Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (1978)
21. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) LD [1953]
22. Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome Intern’l Pty Ltd (1998)
23. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co (1951)
24. Empirnall Holdings v Machon Paull (1988)
25. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)
26. Roads and Traffic Authority v Dederer (2007)
27. Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997)
28. Fallas v Mourlas (2006)
29. Rogers v Whitaker (1992)
30. Caltex Oil v Dredge (1976)
31. Perre v Apand (1999)
32. L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (1982)
33. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980)
34. Hawkins v Clayton (1988)
35. Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)
36. Horne v Queensland (1995)
37. Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)
38. Flavel v State of SA (2008)
39. Tame v NSW (2001)
40. Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2001)
41. Hackshaw v Shaw (1984)
42. Baker v Gilbert (2003)
43. Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)
44. ACCCv Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 12) [2016] FCA 822 (20 July 2016)
45. ACCCv Online Dealz Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 732 (21 June 2016)
46. ACCCv Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 541 (18 May 2016)
47. ACCCv A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 403 (22 April 2016)
48. ACCCv CLA Trading Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 377 (19 April 2016)
49. ACCCv Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 144 (1 March 2016)
50. ACCCv Australian Egg Corporation Limited [2016] FCA 69 (10 February 2016)
51. ACCCv Bunavit Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 6 (12 January 2016)
52. ACCCv Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1408 (11 December 2015)
53. ACCCv Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd trading as Bet365 [2015] FCA 1007 (11 September 2015)
Assessment Criteria
Group oral
presentation and visual slides
50%
Written Assignment:
Identify the issues of the case
10%
Written Assignment: Explain the relevant law relating to the case 10%
Written Assignment:
Discuss the analysis and legal arguments raised by the parties in case
10%
Written Assignment:
Summarise the judgement of the case
10%
Written Assignment:
Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal. 10%
TOTAL
100%
TOTAL
/30%
Criteria High Distinction 80% - Distinction 70%- 79% Credit 60-69% Pass
50-59% Fail
0-49%
Group oral presentation and visual slides
At all times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous; 2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable; 3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case;
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured; and 5. the oral presentations were interesting and engaging.
At all times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous; 2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable; 3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and 4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Most of the times: 1. the group was cohesive and courteous; 2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable; 3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and 4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Some of the times: 1. the group was cohesive and courteous; 2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable; 3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and 4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
At no times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous; 2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable; 3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and 4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Written
Assignment:
Identify the Issues of the case
All the issues are clearly and accurately detailed with reference to cases with similar facts. All the issues are clearly and accurately detailed. Most of the issues are clearly and accurately summarised. Some of the issues are clearly and accurately outlined in brief. The issues are not clearly or accurately outlined.
Written
Assignment: Explain the relevant law relating to the case All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed, and the Act and related cases are referenced and discussed. All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed. Most of the relevant law is clearly and accurately summarised. Some of the relevant law is clearly and accurately outlined in brief. The relevant law is not clearly or accurately outlined.
Written Assignment: Discuss and apply the legal arguments raised by the parties in case
All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed, and there is a synthesis with the relevant law.
All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed.
Most of legal arguments are clearly and accurately summarised.
Some of the legal arguments are clearly and accurately outlined in brief.
The legal arguments are clearly or accurately outlined.
Written
Assignment: Summarise the judgement of the case
The decision of the judge is accurately detailed with reference to any dissenting judgements or precedents. The decision of the judge is accurately detailed. The decision of the judge is accurately summarised in summary format. The decision of the judge is accurately outlined in brief. The decision of the judge is inaccurate or incomplete.
Written Assignment:
Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal. The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were very clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were fairly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were absent.
TOTAL
TOTAL
7