Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

LAW10004 Research Assignment

0 Comments

LAW10004 Research Assignment Help

Assignment instructions

Students are expected to research the relevant legal area and write an answer for both Question 1 and Question 2. The word limit for the written answer is 1500 words.

Your assignment must be submitted as a Word document via Turnitin on Canvas by Friday 18 October 2019 11.59pm.

Late Submissions: Unless an extension has been approved, late submissions will result in a penalty. You will be penalised 10% of the assessment’s worth for each calendar day the task is late, up to a maximum of 5 working days. After 5 working days, a zero result will be recorded.

The assignment must be typed and comply with the following:

  • Double-spaced in Times New Roman font size 12
  • You may use default left and right margins on Microsoft Word
  • Use the legal referencing footnote system provided by The Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC) published by the Melbourne University Law Review Association. Please refer to the Swinburne Library website on how to cite using AGLC: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/library/referencing/aglc3/
  • Your assignment must contain at least two research sources references, excluding the course textbook.
  • Bibliography
  • The submission must contain the Assessment Declaration Statement found on the next page. It should be filled in and attached as the front page for your assignment submission.

Declaration and Statement of Authorship

All students must agree to the following declaration when submitting assessment items

  1. I/we have not impersonated, or allowed myself/ourselves to be impersonated by any person for the purposes of this assessment.
  2. This assessment is my/our original work and no part of it has been copied from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made.
  3. No part of this assessment has been written for me/us by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned.
  4. I/we have not previously submitted this work for a previous attempt of the unit, another unit or other studies at another institution.
  5. I/we  give permission for my/our assessment response to be reproduced, communicated, compared and archived for plagiarism detection, benchmarking or educational purposes.

I/we understand that:

  • Plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as though it is your own. It is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to exclusion from the University.
  • Plagiarised material may be drawn from published and unpublished written documents, interpretations, computer software, designs, music, sounds, images, photographs, and ideas or ideological frameworks gained through working with another person or in a group.
  • Plagiarised material can be drawn from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data and oral presentations. Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not appropriately cited.

I/we agree and acknowledge that:

  1. I/we have read and understood the Declaration and Statement of Authorship above.
  2. I/we accept that use of my Swinburne account to electronically submit this assessment constitutes my agreement to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship.
  3. If I/we do not agree to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship in this context, the assessment outcome may not be valid for assessment purposes and may not be included in my/our aggregate score for this unit.

Penalties for plagiarism range from a formal caution to expulsion from the university, and are detailed in the Student Academic Misconduct Regulations 2012.

Question One

Michelle is at University, studying to be a veterinary surgeon. David, a close family friend is also a veterinary surgeon. Whilst away at University, Michelle received a letter from David on 1st April, saying that he was due to retire in a few weeks’ time and that he wondered whether she would be interested in buying his veterinary equipment for the bargain price of $5000. His letter asked for a reply by 15th April as a junior partner, Peter, in his veterinary practice was also interested in buying the equipment, albeit at a higher price.

Upon receipt of David’s letter, Michelle decided that she would like to buy, but would need to borrow the money. In order to speed matters up, she then wrote to David on 2nd April expressing a firm interest, but asking if he would be prepared to accept payment by instalments. Her letter got lost in the post and was never received by David.

Not having heard from David, Michelle arranged a bank loan and then posted a second letter on 9th April, enclosing a cheque for $5000. This letter only reached David on 17th April.

In the meantime, David had changed his mind about selling her the equipment and sent her an email on 10th April retracting his offer to her. He sold the equipment to Peter on 16th April.

With reference to the case situation above, discuss, using decided cases to support your arguments, the contractual implications and the remedies, if any, that Michelle might be able to pursue against David if she so wished.                                                                   

(25 marks)

Question 2

Jeremy wanted to make some changes to his home. He visited One Stop Shop and ordered the following items:

  1. An air-conditioner unit for $2000. He pays another $500 for the installation.
  2. A Smart TV worth $3000. The salesman told him that Samsunk was the best Australian brand to buy and had great reviews.
  3. A microwave oven for $400.

When the items were delivered to his home, he was given a document. The document had the following clause:

“No warranties or guarantees are made in relation to the efficiency of the operation and suitability for purpose of the items sold.”

The air-conditioner was installed badly and there was a lot of water leakage when it was in operation. The Smart TV had very basic features and did not function like a Smart TV. It was later found that the TV set was not even an Australian brand and had very bad reviews. The microwave oven blew up after being used 5 times and it caused a small fire in Jeremy’s kitchen. This resulted in $3500 worth of damage. Boom Co manufactured the microwave oven.

Jeremy calls One Stop Shop to complain but is told that no action can be taken against them because of the clause. Advise Jeremy if he can pursue remedies against One Stop Shop and Boom Co.                                                                                                                    

(15 marks)