Business law – BBAL201
Term 3 2017
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 (Monday midnight of Week 5)
1. Create a group of upto 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 a 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. Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council (1990)
2. Astley v Austrust Limited (2000)
3. Bridgewater v Leahy (1998)
4. Cohen v Cohen (1929)
5. Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)
6. Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd. v Maher (1988)
7. Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991)
8. Koompahtoo Local Aborginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007)
9. Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail authority of NSW (1982)
10. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
11. Agar v Hyde (2000)
12. Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998)
13. Foran v Wight (1989) HCA 51; (1989)
14. Louth v Diprose (1992)
15. Brisbane City Council v Group Products Pty Ltd (1979)
16. Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991)
17. Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994)
18. National Australia Bank Ltd v Garcia (1996)
19. Nelson v Nelson (1995)
20. Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973)
21. ANZ v Westpac (1988)
22. Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)
23. Louth v Diprose (1992)
24. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
25. Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
26. Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome Intern’l Pty Ltd (1998)
27. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)
28. Perre v Apand (1999)
29. Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)
30. Horne v Queensland (1995)
31. Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)
32. Flavel v State of SA (2008)
33. Tame v NSW (2001)
34. Baker v Gilbert (2003)
35. Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)
36. ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 12) (2016)
37. ACCC v Online Dealz Pty Ltd (2016)
38. ACCC v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016)
39. ACCC v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd (2016)
40. ACCC v CLA Trading Pty Ltd (2016)
41. ACCC v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited (No 2) (2016)
42. ACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited (2016)
43. ACCC v Bunavit Pty Ltd (2016)
44. ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) (2015)
45. ACCC v Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd trading as Bet365 (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:
Referencing 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 the 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:
Referencing All aspects of the argument are developed to a great depth of analysis and interpretation through a complex use of four or more relevant references
Argument is deepened and broadened by references to three or more pieces of the relevant literature/cases
Argument is supported by two or more references
Argument is linked to one or two references
No reference to any literature
TOTAL
TOTAL
Term 3 2017
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 (Monday midnight of Week 5)
1. Create a group of upto 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 a 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. Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council (1990)
2. Astley v Austrust Limited (2000)
3. Bridgewater v Leahy (1998)
4. Cohen v Cohen (1929)
5. Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)
6. Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd. v Maher (1988)
7. Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991)
8. Koompahtoo Local Aborginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007)
9. Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail authority of NSW (1982)
10. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
11. Agar v Hyde (2000)
12. Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998)
13. Foran v Wight (1989) HCA 51; (1989)
14. Louth v Diprose (1992)
15. Brisbane City Council v Group Products Pty Ltd (1979)
16. Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991)
17. Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994)
18. National Australia Bank Ltd v Garcia (1996)
19. Nelson v Nelson (1995)
20. Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973)
21. ANZ v Westpac (1988)
22. Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)
23. Louth v Diprose (1992)
24. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
25. Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
26. Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome Intern’l Pty Ltd (1998)
27. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)
28. Perre v Apand (1999)
29. Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)
30. Horne v Queensland (1995)
31. Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)
32. Flavel v State of SA (2008)
33. Tame v NSW (2001)
34. Baker v Gilbert (2003)
35. Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)
36. ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 12) (2016)
37. ACCC v Online Dealz Pty Ltd (2016)
38. ACCC v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016)
39. ACCC v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd (2016)
40. ACCC v CLA Trading Pty Ltd (2016)
41. ACCC v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited (No 2) (2016)
42. ACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited (2016)
43. ACCC v Bunavit Pty Ltd (2016)
44. ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) (2015)
45. ACCC v Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd trading as Bet365 (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:
Referencing 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 the 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:
Referencing All aspects of the argument are developed to a great depth of analysis and interpretation through a complex use of four or more relevant references
Argument is deepened and broadened by references to three or more pieces of the relevant literature/cases
Argument is supported by two or more references
Argument is linked to one or two references
No reference to any literature
TOTAL
TOTAL
GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS
GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS……
Comments
Post a Comment