Business and Corporations Law | My Assignment Tutor

Page 1 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline T3 2020Assessment 2 Information Subject Code:CLWM4000Subject Name:Business and Corporations LawAssessment Title:Assessment 2Assessment Type:Case Study Analysis -Individual Written Report 2000 Words (-/+10%)Weighting:30 %Total Marks:30Submission:Via TurnitinDue Date:Week 10 Your TaskUsing the Case Study provided, you will need to undertake an analysis of the various legal issues thatare identified, cite relevant rules applicable to the issues, explain the application of the rules to thefacts/situation in the case scenario using the IRAC method.Assessment DescriptionYou are required to answer the following two (2) questions, based on the Case Scenario belowAssessment Instructions• Your assessment is to be submitted via Turnitin in WORD format. PDF submissions willnot be accepted• You must follow the KBS presentation guidelines• Please refer to the assessment marking guide to assist you in completing all theassessment criteria and for information on the use of references and legal citationsPage 2 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline T3 2020CASE SCENARIOPeter Daniel moved permanently to Australia 5 years ago. He had always wanted to run a small businessin Australia. Unfortunately, for the last five years, he had not been able to set up his business as he wasvery busy trying to finish his accounting degree.This year, Peter finally decided to take the risk and open a coffee shop in Melbourne. Peter is interested inthe hospitality industry. When he was doing his accounting degree, he had the opportunity to complete ashort course to be certified as a coffee barista but because he was too busy finishing his degree, hedecided to do this later on.When Peter, opened his coffee shop, he advertised lattes with a large sign that read “Buy a latte for $5dollars and get a mini brownie for free”.One day, on her way to work Gemma, a legal practitioner who works nearby went to Peter’s coffee shopto get a coffee. Gemma wanted to try a new coffee shop in the area. She had heard from one of hercolleagues that there was a new coffee shop nearby giving mini brownies free with a latte. So, shedecided to give it a go. She ordered and paid for a takeaway latte for $5 dollars expecting that she will geta mini brownie for free. Peter, made the coffee extra hot without froth. He gave it to her in a take-awaycoffee cup.Gemma thanked Peter for the coffee and said to Peter “I hope it’s good coffee because I am very fussy”.Peter said, “Of course it’s good you will love it”. Gemma realised that something was missing so sheasked Peter for the free mini brownie. Peter told her “Sorry, we ran out of mini brownies, but we havelarge brownies which are $8 dollars. Gemma did not want a big brownie because she was on diet, but shethought after all, a brownie is a brownie and she can never say no to a brownie, so she paid for it.On her way back to the office, she drank her coffee, but it was too hot. Unfortunately, she burnt her throatwhich made it difficult to talk. She took the lid off her coffee cup and realised that it was not a latte. Peterhad given her an extra hot flat white coffee instead of a latte.Later that morning, she was scheduled to run an important conference on Contract and Consumer Law.Unfortunately, she had to cancel the conference as it was too difficult for her to talk. The consequence ofthe cancellation was that she would not be able to claim her $10,000 fee. The organisers of theconference had spent $25,000 promoting the conference.Gemma was very upset that she could not run the conference that she had been working on for a longtime. Not only had she lost the $10.000 fee, but she had also had to spend $1,000 dollars in medical bills.One week later, she received a letter of demand from the conference organisers asking her to reimbursethem the $25,000 that they had spent on promoting the conference. Now Gemma is “stressed out!”After two weeks, Gemma went back to the office and one of her colleagues started to complain aboutPeter’s coffee shop. Her colleague told her that the owner of that coffee shop was very dishonest. Headvertises Lattes for $5 dollars with a mini brownie for free, but he only makes large brownies and healways tells his customers that he ran out of mini brownies and convinces them to buy the large browniefor $ 8 dollars. On top of this, Peter makes terrible coffee. He always makes flat white’s instead latte’s andthese are always extra hot, even though the coffee cup lid says hot not extra hot.Gemma started to get very suspicious about Peter’s coffee shop and his business practices. She still hasthe receipt when she bought her coffee. Gemma knows a savvy law student who understands AustralianLaw so she wants this student to assist her in exercising her rights under Australian Contract andConsumer Law.Page 3 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline T3 2020QUESTION 1 (15 Marks)• Please advise Gemma, if she entered in a contract with Peter and explain if this contract can beinvalidated under the principles of Contract Law.• In your answer explain the meaning of Contract and which elements need to be satisfied inorder to make a simple contract and how to identify if this contract is a valid contract.• You will need to address all the “essential elements of a contract” including (Offer andacceptance, intention and consideration) as well as “elements of a valid contract” (Capacity,Legality, Genuine Consent, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Durres, Undue Influence andUnconscionability.• You will need to address and explain if Gemma can invalidate the contract. You will also needto address and explain what sort of remedies she will be entitled if she decides to void thecontract.QUESTION 2 (15 Marks)• Please advise Gemma, if Peter breached her Australian Consumer Law Guarantees.• In your answer explain to Gemma her Australian Consumer Law Guarantees under theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2.• You need to justify your view as to whether these guarantees are available and don’t forget toexplain if Gemma will be entitled to claim the remedies.• Explain if Peter will have to pay penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)Schedule 2.Important Study InformationAcademic Integrity PolicyKBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequencesof cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and ConductPolicy.What is academic integrity and misconduct?What are the penalties for academic misconduct?What are the late penalties?How can I appeal my grade?Click here for answers to these questions:http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.Word Limits for Written AssessmentsSubmissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the pointat which that limit is exceeded.Study AssistanceStudents may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to theresources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.Page 4 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline T3 2020Assessment Marking GuideAssessment Marking GuideQUESTION 1 CriteriaF (Fail)5 MarksP (Pass)7- 9MarksCR (Credit)10-11MarksD (Distinction)12-14 MarksHD(High Distinction)15 MarksMarkAssessment ContentContract Law-Explainthe meaning of Contractand how the elementsneed to be satisfied inorder to make a simplecontract validYou will need to addressall the “essentialelements of a contract”including (Offer andacceptance, intentionand consideration) aswell as “elements of avalid contract” Capacity,Legality, GenuineConsent (Mistake,Misrepresentation,Durres, Undue Influenceand Unconscionability).Explain if Gemma andPeter were in a contractand if this contract wasa valid contract . If thecontract is not a validcontract, how would youassist Gemma to Voidthe contract.Advise what are the“Remedies” availablefor Gemma andlimitation to exerciseher right under theContract Law.Your advice shows someunderstanding. Thisassignment is incompleteand inconsistent.Legal Argument are notcomplete or comprehensive.Some support offered forthe argument butinadequate and/orirrelevant. Explanation ofthe issues and solution isnot adequate. Somewhatsuperficial overall, someattempt to establish astructure but inadequate.Inadequate referencing.Your advice is adequatewith a number of the mainprinciples of law identifiedand applied.Difficulty in sustaining ordeveloping a coherentargument, showing someconfusion, but generallydemonstrating evidence ofreading and thinking aboutthe topic. Structuredreasonably well andorganised in a somewhatlogical fashion. Sourcesacknowledged. Generallycorrect expression andspelling with writing of asatisfactory standard.You have provided enoughreferences to support yourlegal arguments. E.g (CaseLaw and StatutoryProvisions)Your advice is good explained themain principles identified andapplied. The main argument issustained but may have someweaknesses. Generallydemonstrated reading andthinking about the topic.Structured reasonably well andorganised in a logical fashion. Allsources acknowledged correctly.Generally presented well and withconsistent use of terminology,correct spellings andexpressions.Your advice has providedmost of the principles of lawapplied. Principles definedand explained to anacceptable level. Shows agood understanding of mostof the principles andintegrates them satisfactorilyinto the analysis. Somegood examples given. Lacksthe depth of an “A” analysis.Well structured – minorinadequacies. Referencingis good but some minorflaws evident. Mainly logicaland coherently organised.Clear and concise andcorrectly written.Your advice showed a detailed,coherently written, organisedassignment that answers thequestion succinctly. Anobjective reasoned argumentthat focuses on the relevantissues of the topic and isexpanded and developed withappropriate examples.Principles of law integrated wellinto the analysis. Showsevidence of having readrelevant textbook, legislationand case studies and so onand clearly references anyauthors quoted in theassignment. No or very minorerrors of expression./15 Page 5 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline T3 2020QUESTION 2 CriteriaF (Fail)5 MarksP (Pass)7- 9 MarksCR (Credit)10-11 MarksD (Distinction)12-14 MarksHD (High Distinction)15 MarksMarkAssessment ContentConsumer LawPlease advise Gemma ifPeter breached herAustralian ConsumerLaw Guarantees.In your answer explainto Gemma herAustralian ConsumerLaw Guarantees underthe Competition andConsumer Act 2010(Cth schedule 2.In addition, Explain theremedies available forGemma and thepenalties that can beimposed to Peter underthe Act for breachingher AustralianConsumer LawGuarantees andlimitationsYour advice shows someunderstanding. Thisassignment is incompleteand inconsistent.Legal Argument are notcomplete or comprehensive.Some support offered forthe argument butinadequate and/orirrelevant. Explanation of theissues and solution is notadequate. Somewhatsuperficial overall, someattempt to establish astructure but inadequate.Inadequate referencing.Your advice is adequate witha number of the mainprinciples of law identifiedand applied.Difficulty in sustaining ordeveloping a coherentargument, showing someconfusion, but generallydemonstrating evidence ofreading and thinking aboutthe topic. Structuredreasonably well andorganised in a somewhatlogical fashion. Sourcesacknowledged. Generallycorrect expression andspelling with writing of asatisfactory standard.You have provided enoughreferences to support yourlegal arguments. E.g (CaseLaw and StatutoryProvisions)Your advice is good explained themain principles identified andapplied. The main argument issustained but may have someweaknesses. Generallydemonstrated reading and thinkingabout the topic. Structuredreasonably well and organised in alogical fashion. All sourcesacknowledged correctly. Generallypresented well and with consistentuse of terminology, correctspellings and expressions.Your advice has providedmost of the principles of lawapplied. Principles definedand explained to anacceptable level. Shows agood understanding of mostof the principles andintegrates them satisfactorilyinto the analysis. Some goodexamples given. Lacks thedepth of an “A” analysis.Well structured – minorinadequacies. Referencing isgood but some minor flawsevident. Mainly logical andcoherently organised. Clearand concise and correctlywritten.Your advice showed adetailed, coherently written,argument that answers thequestion succinctly. Anobjective reasonedargument that focuses onthe relevant issues of thetopic and is expanded anddeveloped with appropriateexamples. Principles of lawintegrated well into theanalysis. Shows evidence ofhaving read relevanttextbook, legislation andcase studies and so on andclearly references anyauthors quoted in theassignment. No or veryminor errors of expression/15

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.