HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T2 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 Adapted Harvard Referencing style.
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, Part B is a question on Negligence and Part C is a question 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 self-enrolling in a group to undertake an assessment task in Blackboard Ultra.
? 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.
? You must attach the official Holmes Institute cover sheet to your group report and upload it 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 Adapted Harvard Referencing style.
? 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 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 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.
Sierra Foxtrot Airport called for tenders for supplies of green seed for its runway surrounds, with a closing date of 1 June.
The following tenders were submitted:
? Green Grow hand-delivered its tender on 29 May, which went into the tender box.
? Sow This! posted its tender on 15 May. This letter was received by Sierra Foxtrot on 17 May, by being submitted so early, one of the administrative assistants filed it with the intention of later putting it in the box when she was properly organised.
? Grassy Plains posted its tender on 30 May. This letter arrived on 2 June but nevertheless was put into the tender box.
It transpired that only two of the tenders were considered by the relevant Sierra Foxtrot officers. The administrative assistant forgot where she had filed the Sow This! tender and did not find it again until a week after the decision was made. The tender by Sow This! was actually the lowest and contained the most attractive features.
Green Grow’s tender was the next lowest, but Sierra Foxtrot had heard rumours about its unreliability. The airport, therefore, awarded the contract to Grassy Plains. Sierra Foxtrot posted a letter to Grassy Plains advising that its tender was successful. Unfortunately, this letter never reached Grassy Plains because it was destroyed by a disgruntled postal worker who had just been made redundant. Since it had not heard from Sierra Foxtrot, Grassy Plains instead committed its full stock of seed to another contract with a regional council.
Sierra Foxtrot became aware of the full situation concerning the tender by Sow This! and the position in which Grassy Plains now finds itself. It seeks advice concerning its contractual position in relation to all three tenders. Advise Sierra Foxtrot with reference to legal principles and rules taught on contract law.
Part B: Negligence question (10 marks)
? Read the questions below on Negligence.
? 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 Civil Liability Act (NSW); 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.
On 3 April 2020, Madeline Burnett placed an advertisement in the Trading Post, a specialist newspaper, advertising a garage sale to be held at her home in the weekend of 5-6 April 2020. Madeline has previous experience in conducting garage sales. Such activities are common in the suburbs of Adelaide, where Madeline’s home was situated, and elsewhere throughout Australia.
The first day of the garage sale, 5 April 2020, started out clear and sunny. Madeline's property included a concrete driveway extending from a carport annexed to the house to the public footpath and road. The driveway comprised sections of concrete joined in an expansion joint which extended throughout its length. Madeline placed a variety of domestic articles for sale on a trestle table situated on the southern side of the driveway close to the carport. Prospective purchasers had no alternative but to approach the goods by walking over the driveway. Madeline expected a volume of pedestrian traffic to attend the sale. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disparity in the levels of the adjoining concrete slabs in the forecourt of her home.
Darcie entered Madeline's premises at about 8:40 a.m. wearing slip-on shoes. She walked towards the trestle table. To do this, she had to cross the divide in the concrete slabs. An object caught her eye, presumably one of the garden or other items for sale on the trestle table. At that point, her right foot rolled on the elevation of one concrete slab as it adjoined the adjacent slab. Darcie, a woman then aged 53, fell towards the ground, touching it but then regaining her footing. In the course of this motion, she felt a crack in her right foot. This was later diagnosed as having caused a fracture.
Darcie sued Madeline in the Magistrates Court of South Australia, claiming damages for negligence.
Using legal principles and rules learned on Negligence, advise Darcie on whether her case against Madeleine will be successful.
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.
Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd (“Bluff”) owns 50% of the shares of Life Electronics (“Life Electronics”) Pty Ltd. Last year, Bluff was contacted by Alphacoms Pty Ltd (“Alphacoms”), which owns the other 50% of bluff. Alphacoms wanted to invest a large sum of money in Life Electronics, to allow it to research and develop a potentially valuable software application. The directors of Bluff at the time hired a team of consultants, which included a software applications expert, and instructed them to research the technical aspects of the proposed application and future possibilities involving the technology.
The team of consultants worked for three months researching for and writing the report. The report they presented to Bluff’s directors showed that the proposed investment in the software application could very likely prove successful. Jerry Robinson is one of Bluff’s directors. He holds a Masters of Computer Programming degree from a well-known university. Jerry’s fellow directors asked him about the consultants’ positive projections. Jerry told them that the report is accurate. In reality though, some of the information in the report was not well-researched and supported by up to date data. As a result, when Bluff’s directors rely on the report and invest the company’s money in the new software application, the investment will not be as lucrative as the consultants predicted.
Citing specific common law and Corporations Act directors duties, critically analyse and discuss whether the directors of Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd (or any of them) breached their duty of care?
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; well-reasoned 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 in-text 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)
Not following adapted Harvard
Referencing rules =
10% of overall mark
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; well-reasoned 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 in-text 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)
Not following adapted Harvard
Referencing rules =
10% of overall mark