Trimester 1, 2018
Assessment Two – Case Study
DUE DATE AND TIME: Monday 26 April 2018@11:59pm
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 25%
| Unit Learning Outcome (ULO) | Graduate Learning Outcome (GLO) |
| ULO1: Apply key principles of law for commerce to recognise and evaluate legal issues. | GLO1: Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
GLO4: Critical Thinking |
| ULO2: Interpret and analyse a range of legal issues and the bearing they have in commerce | GLO1: Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
GLO4: Critical Thinking |
| ULO4: Identify critical legal issues in the international context that have a bearing on business ethics, standards and practice in Australia | GLO8: Global citizenship |
Your task is to provide solutions to the legal issues posed in the case study, drawing on the legal principles covered in Topics 2 (Part 2) and 3 (for scenarios one and two) and legal principles derived from your own research (for scenarios three and four). Scenarios one and two in the case study are based on your course materials for Topics 2 (Part 2) and 3. Scenarios three and four require you to conduct research. The materials that you should refer to when preparing your answer to scenarios one and two include the study guide, textbook, powerpoints, and cases referred to in the materials. However, do not referencepowerpoints, the study guide and textbook. Cite cases and legislation (if applicable) only. Your answer to scenarios three and four must be researched and referenced using the Deakin Harvard style of referencing.
The word count for this assessment is 1500 words (including headings, sub-headings and in-text citations, but DOES NOT INCLUDE references). There is a +10% leeway. In other words, the maximum word count is 1650. Submissions that exceed the word count will be penalised. There is no minimum word count.
Ensure that you read all of the instructions contained in this document.
Case Study: The Story of Rob of Dental Delights Pty Ltd
Scenario 1
In January 2018, Dental Delights Pty Ltd, led by Rob, a young and entrepreneurial dentist, bought a block of land and engaged Brad the Builder Pty Ltd to lead the building of the project, a new dental clinic specialising in dental implants. As Rob was keen to open for business, he requested Brad to finish the project three weeks earlier than planned, with the promise of a sizeable bonus. Brad readily agreed as he wanted to impress Rob. Brad asked his interior designer, Melanie, to work ten consecutive days so they could meet the deadline. Melanie complied, as she was keen to get more work from Brad in the future. After she had finished her work and at a celebratory lunch, Brad promised Melanie an extra $3,000 for her efforts. The next day, however, they had a massive row about the way she talked to Rob. Brad told her she can go and find work elsewhere and to forget about the $3,000.
Discuss whether Melanie can sue Brad?
Note: Research is not required for this scenario. You may rely on the course materials to answer this question.
Suggested word count: 300 to 400 words
Rob of Dental Delights does not like some of the exclusive furniture in the waiting rooms, and the supplier will not take it back, because it has now been used. Rob advertises it for $20,000, and a man appears within hours to inspect it. Rob is convinced the man is the well-known actor, Vince Colosimo, and his belief is reinforced when the man says, “Call me Vince”. In fact, this ‘Vince’ is a rogue who happens to look like the actor. ‘Vince’ loves the furniture and gives Rob $5,000 in cash. He does not ask for a receipt and says he will transfer the remaining $15,000 electronically to the account of Dental Delights within two days. The following day, the man’s two friends collect the furniture and assure Rob that Vince will indeed pay up within 24 hours. The payment does not arrive, so Rob contacts the police, who eventually locate the furniture at Judy’s house. Judy said she bought the furniture for $20,000 from a man who looked distinctly like someone she had seen in a TV series.
Can Rob recover the furniture from Judy?
Suggested word count: 300 to 400 words
At a party, Rob meets Jeff Price, who is an accountant and financial adviser. Rob tells Jeff that he plans to expand his business. Jeff knows nothing about Dental Delights Pty Ltd, but as he is slightly inebriated, he tells Rob that his dental business is in a sound position to expand. Relying on that statement, Rob borrows $50,000 from Northpac Credit, a small credit union. Unfortunately, things do not go as planned, as Rob has underestimated the costs of expanding the business. Rob has to forfeit $5,000 deposit on new premises and defaults on the Northpac loan.Rob now wants to sue Jeff for damages.
Advise Rob if Jeff owes him a duty of care for negligent misrepresentation. Find two cases to support your conclusion. (Do not discuss breach of duty of care, causation and remoteness.)
Area tested: Research and negligent misstatement
Suggested word count: 300 to 400 words
In a casual conversation with fellow business professionals at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Rob was told that his business had to comply with international business standards.
Give ONE example of a UN Global Compact principle (there are ten in total) that might have particular relevance to Rob in his dental practice, and explain why in a short paragraph.
Guidelines for Completing Assessment 2
The objective of this task is to provide you with another opportunity to formalise a written answer to a legal problem, as you will be presented with similar legal problem questions in the exam. This assessment is the second step in acquiring the skill of legal argumentation, which is set as a discipline-specific skill with which to enhance your writing abilities, as well as to provide a deeper understanding of the workings of law in commerce. It is important that your discussion focuses on analysing the facts of the hypothetical problem and applying the law to those facts. Marks will be awarded:
- for your identification of the issues and the material facts that are relevant to those issues;
- your identification of the law that applies to those facts and issues; and
- most importantly, the application and analysis of the law as it applies to those facts and issues. Generalised statements of legal principles – that is, those that are not sufficiently adapted to the facts – will attract limited marks only.
There is a research component to this assessment (scenarios three and four). You are expected to conduct your own research on the topics given. There is no minimum or maximum number of resources that you must include,but all material must be correctly referenced according to the Deakin Harvard style of referencing.
Referencing
For Assessment Two, you are required to provide a Reference List (using Deakin Harvard style of referencing) indicating the sources used for scenarios three and four.
Marking Criteria
Your assessment is worth 25% of your final grade for this unit. It is marked out of 100 but the final grade will be converted to 25%. Your assessment will be assessed against the following criteria:
- Identification of the issues
- Identification of the applicable legal principles and relevant sources
- Analysis of the facts and application of the law to the facts, and conclusion
NOTE: Criteria 1 to 3 relate to the IRAC formula and should be used for scenarios one, two and three.
- Your response to scenario 4 (this does not require the use of IRAC)
- Research and referencing (apply only to scenarios three and four)
These criteria will be applied by way of a rubric (attached to this document for your reference).
Submission Instructions, Due Date, and Extension / Late Submission Policy
- Your assessment should be submitted in Microsoft Word (or rich text) format – .doc, .docx or .rtf. Please do not submit your assessment in PDF format, Apple Pages format, or in any other format. It is your responsibility to ensure that the file you submit is readable. Files that are not readable will be treated as non-submissions. Similarly, take care to ensure that you have submitted the right version of the file (i.e., your final version, and not a draft version) and that you have submitted the assessment for this unit (and have not mistakenly submitted an assessment that was written for another unit). If you inadvertently submit the wrong document, you may upload a fresh (correct) version of your assessment at any time before the due date as only the latest submission will be marked. Note that further submissions beyond the due date will attract a late penalty.
- You do not need to upload a separate cover sheet.
- Use IRAC (where relevant).
- Calibri11 point font and line spacing of 1.5.
- Use the default margin (2.54 cm) on all sides.
- You must provide a word count at the beginning of your assessment. All pages of the assessment must be numbered and your student ID number included in the header or footer.
- You must ensure that your writing, spelling and grammar are carefully checked and reach a satisfactory standard.
- The due date and time for this assessment is 11:59 PM (Melbourne time) on Monday 26 April 2018. Your assessment must be submitted via CloudDeakin. If (and only if) there is a CloudDeakin system failure, you may submit your assessment via email to the Unit Chair (Dr Kim Teh) at teh@deakin.edu.au as evidence of timely submission, and your assessment must then be submitted to CloudDeakin once it becomes available (it is a university requirement that all assessments are posted to CloudDeakin). You should not submit a hard copy of your assessment. Please note that missing the assessment due time is not a reason to submit via email – please read the extension/late submission policy (below) very carefully.
- To obtain an extension, you must email the Unit Chair (Dr Kim Teh) at teh@deakin.edu.au. Extensions will only be granted for serious and exceptional circumstances beyond your control. Travel, computer failure and work commitments are not grounds for extensions. If you apply for an extension, you must include supporting documentation. Extensions will not be granted without supporting documentation or other evidence of the relevant circumstances.
Requests for extensions must ordinarily be made at least 3 working days before the assessment due date. Requests should only be made after this time where there are exceptional reasons for doing so. Extension requests cannot be made after the due date, unless there are highly exceptional reasons that prevent you from applying for an extension at the regular time.
If an extension is granted, the period of the extension will be commensurate with the circumstances that have affected the completion of your assessment. For example, if you were affected by a medical condition for three days, you would expect that the extension granted would be three days. This means that if you submit an extension request, we do not expect you to provide information to us that is sensitive and thus inappropriate to be disclosed, but we do expect you to be able to provide us with an adequate explanation of the circumstances that have led to your extension request. If you do not explain those circumstances, it is not possible to grant an extension, as it is not possible to make an assessment of the extent to which the completion of your assessment has been affected. The maximum extension period that can be granted is two weeks.
- Late submissions for which no extension has been granted will attract a late penalty. Late submissions will be dealt with in accordance with cl 46 of the University Assessment (Higher Education Courses) Procedure. Clause 46 provides:
(46) A due date and time will be set for the submission of each summative assessment task. A marking penalty will be applied where the assessment task is submitted after the due date without an approved extension as follows:
- 5% will be deducted from available marks for each day up to five days.
- Where work is submitted more than five days after the due date, the task will not be marked and the student will receive 0% for the task.
‘Day’ means working day for paper submissions and calendar day for electronic submissions.
Your marked assessment will be returned to you within 15 working days of submission(i.e. 17 May 2018), unless otherwise advised – with feedback. Please take the opportunity to consider the feedback you have received and to think about how you might use that feedback to excel in the exam (or, hopefully, to keep doing the things that you have been doing well).
Your marked assessment may contain a range of positive and negative feedback. The purpose of this feedback is to help you learn from your submission. Sometimes, feedback will be given for this educational purpose even though it has not been related to a matter taken into account in marking on this occasion. It is not necessarily the case that every item of positive feedback is something that you ‘gained marks’ for, or that every item of negative feedback is something that you ‘lost marks’ for. Sometimes, we are merely helping you learn for the future.
Plagiarism and Collusion
By clicking the ‘submit’ button in the assessment submission area, you are declaring that the attached work is entirely your own, except where otherwise acknowledged, and you are also declaring that it has not been submitted for assessment in any other unit or course.
Plagiarism and collusion are taken very seriously in the Faculty of Business and Law, and in this unit. Instances of plagiarism and collusion will be reported to the Faculty Academic Progress Committee. You are advised to familiarise yourselves with the plagiarism and collusion information contained in your Unit Guide and contained on CloudDeakin. In essence, plagiarism occurs if you pass off as your own work (or copy without acknowledgement) the work of another person, while collusion occurs if you obtain the agreement of another person for a fraudulent purpose, with the intent of obtaining an advantage in submitting an assessment or in other work.
Criteria |
YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD |
MEETS STANDARD |
EXCEEDS STANDARD |
|||
Not attempted |
Needs Improvement |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very good |
Excellent |
|
| Identification of relevant legal issues for scenarios 1 and 2 – (10 Marks)
GLO1 |
Very few or no legal issues identified. The issues identified are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.
(0-2.9 Marks) |
A few legal issues identified. The issues identified are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.
(3-4.9 Marks) |
An adequate number of legal issues identified and explained satisfactorily.
(5-5.9 Marks) |
Most legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed reasonably clearly and to a good standard.
(6-6.9 Marks) |
Almost all legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed clearly, and are completely stated to a very good standard.
(7.7.9 Marks) |
All legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed fully, clearly, and are precisely and accurately stated to an exemplary standard.
(8-10 Marks)
|
| Identification of the legal rules. Defines the correct area of the law and legal rules (cases and/or statutory provisions) relevant to the problems in scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (20 Marks)
GLO1 |
Legal rules are not stated, or, if stated, are incomplete or inaccurate. No case law or statute to support the legal rule.
(0-5.9 Marks) |
Very few legal rules stated. The legal rules stated are incomplete or inaccurate.
Very few case law and/or statutory provisions presented to support the legal rules or those selected are irrelevant.
(6-9.9 Marks) |
Some legal rules stated. The legal rules stated are reasonably clear and accurate.
Some relevant cases and/or statutory provisions presented to support the legal rule.
Overall, a satisfactory standard.
(10-11.9 Marks) |
Main legal rules are stated and defined with clarity.
Most cases and/or statutory provisions presented to support the legal rules.
Overall, a good standard
(12-13.9 Marks) |
Almost all legal rules are stated and defined clearly and accurately.
Almost all cases and/or statutory provisions presented to support the legal rule. The cases and/or statutory provisions are all relevant.
Overall, a very good standard.
(14-15.9 Marks)
|
All legal rules stated and thoroughly defined with concise, and precise accuracy.
All cases and/or statutory provisions presented to support the legal rule. All cases and/or statutory provisions are relevant and exactly on point.
Overall, an exemplary standard.
(16-20 Marks)
|
Criteria |
YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD |
MEETS STANDARD |
EXCEEDS STANDARD |
||||||||||
Not attempted |
Needs Improvement |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very good |
Excellent |
||||||||
| Application/analysis and conclusion of legal rules to the factual problems in scenarios 1, 2 and 3 – (30 Marks)
GLO1/GLO4 |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is either absent or unintelligible.
No conclusion or conclusions are unintelligible or without justification.
(0-8.9 Marks) |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is unclear, incomplete and/or inaccurate.
Conclusions lack justification and/or are expressed unclearly. The conclusions conflict with the analysis.
(9-14.9 Marks) |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions demonstrates a satisfactory standard but needs more clarity, completeness, and accuracy.
Conclusions are justified, but at times conflict with the analysis.
(15-17.9 Marks) |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is clear with some accuracy, but lacks completeness.
Conclusions are justified, with adequate clarity, but are incomplete.
(18-20.9 Marks) |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is expressed clearly and completely.
Conclusions are justified, clear and complete, with very minor inaccuracies.
(21-23.9 Marks) |
Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is thorough and concisely expressed, without flaw.
Conclusions are clear and concise, thoroughly justified and applied without error. (24-30 Marks) |
|||||||
| Identification and explanation of a UN Global Compact human rights principle – (20 Marks)
GLO8
|
Has not identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4.
(0-5.9 Marks) |
Has not adequately identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4.
(6-9.9 Marks) |
Has identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4 to a satisfactory standard.
(10-11.9 Marks) |
Has identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4 to a good standard.
(12-13.9 Marks) |
Has identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4 to a very good standard.
(14-15.9 Marks)
|
Has identified and explained one UN Global Compact human rights principle relevant to scenario 4 to an excellent standard.
(16-20 Marks)
|
|||||||
| Research and referencing.
Cases and/or statutory provisions cited correctly (in text and at the end of the document) – (20 Marks) GLO3
GLO3
ULO3/GLO3 |
No evidence of research with no references included.
NoattempthasbeenmadeatapplyingtheDeakinHarvardReferencingGuide.
(0-5.9 Marks) |
Incorrect references used to support the discussion.
VerylittleattempthasbeenmadeatapplyingtheDeakinHarvardReferencingGuide (particularlytherulesregardinglegalsources)orithasnotbeen appliedcorrectly.
(6-9.9 Marks) |
A basic range of references included and used to a basic extent to support discussion.
DeakinHarvardReferencingGuide(particularlytherulesregardinglegal sources)hasbeenapplied satisfactorily, but with quite a few errors. (10-11.9 Marks) |
An adequate range of references included and used to support discussion.
DeakinHarvardReferencingGuide(particularlytherulesregardinglegalsources)hasbeenappliedwell, with some errors.
(12-13.9 Marks)
|
Relevant references included and used to effectively support discussion.
DeakinHarvardReferencingGuide(particularlytherulesregardinglegal sources)appliedverywell, with minimal errors. (14-15.9 Marks) |
Relevant and excellent references included and used to effectively support discussion.
ExcellentuseoftheDeakinHarvardReferencingGuide(particularlytherulesregardinglegalsources), with no errors. (16-20 Marks)
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Overall mark 100% | 0-19 | 20-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-100 | |||||||
| Grade | Fail (n) | ||||||||||||
Previous answers to this question
This is a preview of an assignment submitted on our website by a student. If you need help with this question or any assignment help, click on the order button below and get started. We guarantee authentic, quality, 100% plagiarism free work or your money back.
Get The Answer