HI6027 T2 2020 Business and Corporate Law
HI6027 Business and Corporate Law Group Assignment
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T2 2020
Unit Code HI6027
Unit Title Business and Corporate Law
Assessment Type Group Assignment
Assessment Title Case Studies of Contract Law and Business Structures
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 two 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.
In this Group Assignments, students are required to:
– Critically analyse the ethical implications of legal decisions and how they impact on the business environment. (ULO 2)
– Assess the obligations, rights and remedies available to parties in particular commercial relationships. (ULO 3)
– Critically examine the foundations of Australian company law. (ULO 4)
– Critically discuss and apply contract and tort law in business circumstances. (ULO 5)
– Critically discuss and apply the legal framework that regulates a company’s dealings
with outsiders. (ULO 7) Weight 40% of the total assessments Total Marks 40%
Word limit Group Written Report of maximum 2,000 words
Due Date Week 10
• 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 AGLC style.
Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.
1. This group assignment consists of 2 parts. Part A is a question on Contract Law, and Part B is a question involving Business Structures. Both questions must be answered. Each question is worth
2. The total word limit for the group report is 2,000 words (+/- 10% allowed) with each part having a maximum word count of 1,000 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.
3. 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.
• You must form your groups by self-enrollment in Blackboard. Please refer to the document “Group Assessment Self Enrolment Tutorial” that has been posted in Blackboard (under announcements and also in “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 de 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 as the official Holmes Institute cover sheet to your group report and upload on
• Group report must be submitted via SafeAfssign 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 Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A copy of the AGLC has been posted in the Week 2 tutorial folder. You may also download a copy for free via this link:
• 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. It has also been copied at the end of this document.
• Plagiarism and contract cheating in any form will not be tolerated. It 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.
Marking criteria Weighting (%)
– Identification of material facts involved in problem question 8%
– Identification of legal issues / legal question and relevant law 10%
– Thorough yet succinct application of law to material facts 10%
– Citation and referencing 8%
– Professional quality 4%
TOTAL Weight 40%
Part A: Contracts Law Question (20 marks)
• Read the Contracts Law question below.
• In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the question using the IRAC method.
• Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.
• Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part A question.
Rhino Distillery, a famous whiskey distillery, placed the following advertisement in the Avid
Angler magazine on 25 January:
‘Calling all anglers of all ages and levels! Come one, come all! Fishermen
and women of Placid River. We are offering to prize money of $75,000 to any angler who reels in Misterjaw, a giant barramundi which we have tagged and released into the river.’
The following day was the Australia Day holiday. Placid River was crowded with people fishing from the bank and from boats. At around noon, a rumour spread among the people on the bank that there had been an error in the advertisement: that the true amount should have been $7,500 and that Rhino Distiller had announced that the prize would be the lower amount. The rumour was in fact true.
Georgie Lang, known to his friends as “Gorka”, had heard this rumour from the stranger fishing beside him, minutes before catching Misterjaw. A Rhino Distillery representative was on present to certify the catch before Misterjaw was released back into the river, but did not say anything about the amount of the prize money.
In the meantime, Tyler Henry, also known as “Hank” among the local angler aficionados, was fishing from his boat and did not hear the rumour. Hank was so sure that he would catch Misterjaw and claim the prize. He returned every weekend until he finally caught Misterjaw on Christmas Eve.
Gorka now claims that Rhino Distillery owes him $75,000. Hank also claims that Rhino
Distillery owes him that prize money.
Advise Rhino Distillery, explaining applicable legal principles and citing relevant authorities on:
(1) Whether the company is liable to pay Gorka the $75,000 prize. (10 marks) (2) Whether the company is liable to pay Hank the $75,000 prize. (10 marks)
Part B: Business Structures question (20 marks)
• Read the questions below on Business Structures.
• In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the given question.
• A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant 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).
• Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part B question.
A music promoter has had an offer to bring a famous musical group from England to Australia, as part of its world tour to promote its new album. The music promoter has done smaller tours previously, but nothing on the scale proposed by the manager of this famous group, the tour will cost several million dollars, but is likely to have revenue which will result in substantial profits for those involved.
The promoter has some contacts at a national radio station which can promote the tour, and there is at least one financier who is interested in financing the tour in return of course for a share of the revenue from the tour.
The promoter is calling for a meeting of the different interested parties, he is not sure what business organisation would be best to manage and conduct the proposed tour, particularly as it is going to involve various diverse entities, each with their own separate business interests.
(1) The options open to the different parties in what business structure they might use to promote the tour (8 marks);
(2) The dangers of each type of business structure (6 marks); and
(3) Whether there is any means of limiting risks by each party (6 marks)
Total marks available: 20 marks per question
Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Identification of material facts involved in problem question
Identification of legal issues / legal question and relevant law
Thorough yet succinct application of law to material facts
Citation and referencing (including minimum number of references)
7.5 to 8 marks
Completely identifies all relevant facts of case
9 to 10 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
9 to 10 marks
Correctly identifies facts; well- reasoned discussion relating facts to the rules and case law.
7.5 to 8 marks
Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, in-text and in reference list.
6 to 7 marks
Identifies most of the relevant facts of case
7 to 8 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.
7 to 8 marks
Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned.
6 to 7 marks
Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in formatting of
in-text citations and reference list
4 to 5.5 marks
Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts
5 to 6 marks
Issues are not completely identified.
Legal rules and case law not correctly identified.
5 to 6 marks
Facts not correctly identified.
4 to 5.5 marks
Does not have minimum of 6 references or contains errors in formatting of in- text citations and reference list
Below 4 marks
Does not identify relevant facts of case
Below 5 marks
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.
Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.
Below 5 marks
Scant to no analysis.
Below 4 marks
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
(4 marks) 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)
3.75 to 4 marks
Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors.
3 to 3.5 marks
Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding.
2.5 to 2.75 marks
Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding. Sloppy.
Below 2 marks
Reflects no real effort.
Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.
Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches
Plagiarism Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
Collusion Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
Copying Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
Impersonation Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheating Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsification
Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.
Source: INQAAHE, 2020