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

MLC101 Law for Commerce

0 Comments

MLC101 Law for Commerce Assignment

Trimester 2, 2019

Assessment Two – Case Study

DUE DATE AND TIME: Thursday 5th September 2019@11:59pm

PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 30%

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
ULO3: Use appropriate digital technologies to search, retrieve and apply relevant information to law for commerce. GLO3: Digital Literacy
ULO4: Identify critical legal issues in the international context that have a bearing on business ethics, standards and practice in Australia GLO8: Global Citizenship

Overview of this assessment

Your task is to provide analysis and evaluation of the legal issues posed in the case study (HFS), drawing on the legal principles covered in Topics 3-4 (for scenarios one and two) and the effect of international legal instruments on commercial practises in Australia (for scenario three), derived from your own independent research.  Scenarios one and two are based on your course materials from Topics 3 to 4 (this does not necessarily mean that there is one question from each topic), however further research (beyond the textbook) will most definitely enhance the quality of your submission.  If you wish to score a very high grade for this assessment, it is strongly advised that you look beyond the course materials.  Scenario three is completely research based (as there are no international law topics in the unit).  You must correctly reference for this assessment, however, please do not reference powerpoints, the study guide or the textbook. Cite cases and legislation (including international legal instruments and principles) in full – you need not cite the source of the case or legislation (for example if you research the facts from another textbook or article).  Your answer to all the scenarios must be researched and referenced using the Deakin Harvard style of referencing.

***YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE LEGAL RESEARCH MODULE IN THE RESOURCES BEFORE THE DROPBOX FOR ASSESSMENT TWO WILL OPEN.

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, please ensure the maximum word count is 1650 and you are not under 1350.  Submissions outside the word count leeway may be penalised.

Ensure that you read all of the instructions contained in this document.

Case Study:  Kumar’s concerns and IT employment issues

Scenario 1

Criss Cross Computer Systems Ltd. (CCCS), an IT services and consulting firm in Werribee employs Pru as an IT specialist.  CCCS’s main business is in the Werribee and surrounding areas.  Pru held a 20% shareholding in CCCS that she had gradually accumulated over the course of her employment (15 years).  Pru’s contract stated that she could not be employed by a business ‘similar to or competitive with’ the company for four years anywhere in Australia, after ceasing employment with CCCS.   In addition, Pru had a separate contract with CCCS which provided that upon the sale of her shareholding, she could not ‘Carry on, engage in or have any involvement in Restricted Business’, for a minimum of 8 years.

‘Restricted Business’ was defined as ‘any business which is competitive with, or likely to be competitive with, the Business at the relevant time during the Restraint Period.’ Business was defined as ‘the business of IT procurement and associated IT managed services carried on by the Company.’

This separate contract also provided that in consideration for this shareholding sale restraint, Pru would receive $200,000 into a trust account. 

Pru has recently given her one month’s notice (provided in the employment contract), and informed CCCS that she intends to sell her shares, as she just signed a lucrative contract with Jump Systems Ltd., an IT company in Darwin.  CCCS’s CEO, Kumar, approaches you about Pru’s conduct, and says that he recently read a Victorian case from 2017 about this type of thing, and thinks Pru is in breach of both her employment contract and the shareholding contract.

Advise Kumar.

Please use case law to support your answer. (12 marks)

Note: Research is required for this scenario. You may rely on the course materials to answer this question but it is expected that you also research beyond the course materials.

Suggested word count: 500 to 600 words

Scenario 2

Kumar has been living in his new home in Geelong for three years, when he realises that there are some structural problems with the home.  He contacts the builders, Constructs Ltd., to complain that there is water leaking from under the home, which is causing the walls to warp and crack.  When Constructs inspects the home, they realise that there were construction defects, so they decide to settle with Kumar (who had threatened to sue), to avoid legal costs and damage to their reputation.  Besides, Constructs were confident that they would be able to rely on their insurance policy with Big Sea Insurance (BSI) to indemnify them for the costs of the repair of Kumar’s home.

Constructs policy with BSI provided coverage for ‘damage to property’, however several exclusion clauses were present.

Clause 11 states that ‘damage to property’ coverage shall not apply to liability:

‘…arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional advice or service by the Insured or any error or omission connected therewith’

Constructs claim that this clause was not in the original contract version, which was provided online, and therefore the clause is not operative.  One of the managers at Constructs, Simon, had signed the final paper contract without reading the terms, believing them to be the same as the online version.   Constructs now seek your advice, as they do not believe that the term is valid, and if it is it should not apply as it is unfair. 

Advise Constructs.

Please use case law to support your answer. (12 marks)

Note: Research is required for this scenario. You may rely on the course materials to answer this question but it is expected that you research beyond the course materials.

Suggested word count: 500 to 600 words

Scenario 3

Shaoqing is a part owner and manager of Jump Systems Ltd. (JS), an IT services company in Darwin.  On one of his recent trips overseas, he was made aware that one of JS’s overseas supplier’s parts’ manufacturers had become embroiled in a worker exploitation scandal, with allegations of child labour and worker abuse.  Shaoqing is not sure if his business partners are aware of the situation, as it had not made the Australian news, and he is not sure whether to tell them about it.  The parts come at a very good price, and they are very good quality.  In fact, it was Shaoqing himself who had done the groundwork to source the supplier.  With the business looking to expand, Shaoqing is under pressure by the other owners of JS to maintain their current profitability, and he does not want to do anything to stifle their progress.   

Imagine that you work for Global Compact Network Australia, and are presenting to small businesses in Darwin.  Drawing on your experience and understanding of the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, how would you advise Shaoqing about his situation.

Please cite specific principles and related international conventions and articles in your advice. (5 marks)

Note: Research is required for this scenario. The course materials WILL NOT be sufficient to complete an answer for this scenario because of the International Law component, which is not taught formally.  This particular question focuses specifically on ULO4 – which requires students to recognise that international legal standards have a bearing on commercial practises in Australia.

Suggested word count: 200 to 300 words

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 (HFS), albeit at a more advanced level, with an expectation of legal research. 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 for 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 (cases, legislation and legislative provisions, international law conventions and articles) 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 relevant to the facts – will attract limited marks only;
  • a conclusion, which is either certain, or dependant on the facts of the scenario, uncertain.  In other words, if you are unable to conclude with certainty, please explain why. 

There is a research component to this assessment (all scenarios require research beyond the course materials to excel, and scenario three is almost purely research based). You are expected to conduct your own research on the case study scenarios. 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.  It is NOT about how many references you use, but rather the relevance and quality of those references that you select.  It is once again emphasized that you need not reference the textbook, study guide, class lecture slides, or materials provided by your seminar tutor.  

***YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE LEGAL RESEARCH MODULE IN THE RESOURCES BEFORE THE DROPBOX FOR ASSESSMENT TWO WILL OPEN.

Referencing

For Assessment Two, you are required to provide a Reference List (using Deakin Harvard style of referencing) indicating the sources used.

Marking Criteria

Your assessment is worth 30% of your final grade for this unit. It is marked out of 100 but the final grade will be converted to 30%. Your submissions will be assessed according to a marking rubric attached to this document. 

Submission Instructions, Due Date, and Extension / Late Submission Policy

***YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE LEGAL RESEARCH MODULE IN THE RESOURCES BEFORE THE DROPBOX FOR ASSESSMENT TWO WILL OPEN.

  • 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). You are not able to ‘take back’ your submission and upload a fresh (correct) version of your assessment, however this should not be a concern, as only your most recent submission will be marked, provided it is submitted before the due date and time. Any further submissions beyond the due date and time will attract a late penalty.  Please observe the following format:
  • You do not need to upload a separate cover sheet.
  • Use IRAC (where relevant).
  • Calibri 11 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 Thursday 5th September, 2019. 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 (Jay Gul) at jay.gul@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 (Jay Gul) at jay.gul@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:

Penalties for late submission of assessment tasks

(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:

  1. 5% will be deducted from available marks for each day up to five days. 

  2. 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.

Feedback

Your marked assessment will be returned to you within 15 working days of submission (i.e. 26 September, 2019), 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 was not related to a matter taken into account for marking. 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.

MLC101 Law for Commerce T2 2019 Assessment 2 Marking Rubric

 (Scenario One and Two)

Criteria YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD MEETS STANDARD EXCEEDS STANDARD
Not attempted Needs Improvement Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
Identification of legal issues   GLO 1   15% Very few or no legal issues identified. The issues identified are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.               A few legal issues identified. The issues identified are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.             An adequate number of legal issues identified.  The issues identified are explained reasonably clearly, but are incomplete and/or inaccurately expressed.           Most legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed reasonably clearly and completely, with some minor inaccuracies.         Almost all legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed clearly and completely, with very minor inaccuracies.         All legal issues identified. The issues identified are expressed fully, clearly, and are precisely and accurately defined.    
Identification of the legal rules. Defines the correct principles of law and cites legal rules (cases and/or statutory provisions) relevant to the problem.   GLO 1,4  25% Legal rules/principles of law are not identified, or if identified are incomplete or inaccurate.   No case law or statute to support the legal rule.   Very few legal rules/principles of law identified. The legal rules identified are irrelevant, incomplete or inaccurate.   Very few case law and/or statutory provisions cited to support the legal rules or those selected are irrelevant. Some relevant legal rules/principles of law identified.  The legal rules identified are reasonably clear and accurate.   Some relevant cases and/or statutory provisions cited to support the legal rules.  Some cases and/or statutory provisions are of questionable relevance.    The main relevant legal rules/principles of law are identified and defined with clarity, but with minor inaccuracy.    Most of the cases and/or statutory provisions cited to support the legal rules. Few cases and/or statutory provisions are of questionable relevance.   Almost all relevant legal rules/principles of law are identified and defined clearly and accurately.    Almost all cases and/or statutory provisions cited to support the legal rules.  The cases and/or statutory provisions are all relevant.  All the relevant legal rules/principles of law identified and thoroughly defined with concise, and precise accuracy.   All cases and/or statutory provisions cited to support the legal rules.  All cases and/or statutory provisions are relevant and exactly on point.
Criteria YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD MEETS STANDARD EXCEEDS STANDARD
Not attempted Needs Improvement Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
Application/analysis of legal rules to the factual problems. 40%  GLO 1,4 Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is either absent or unintelligible.       Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is unclear, incomplete and/or inaccurate. Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions demonstrates basic understanding, but lacks clarity, completeness, and/or accuracy. Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is clear and accurate but lacks completeness.  Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is clear, accurate and complete, with very minor flaws.   Analysis/application of the elements of the case law and/or statutory provisions is thorough and concisely expressed, without flaw.  
Conclusion 5%   GLO 1,4 No conclusion or conclusions are unintelligible or without justification.   Conclusions lack justification and/or are expressed unclearly. The conclusions conflict with the analysis.    Conclusions are justified, but incomplete and inaccurate.  Conclusions at times conflict with the analysis. Conclusions are justified, with adequate clarity, but are incomplete with minor inaccuracies.  Conclusions are justified, clear and complete, with very minor inaccuracies. Conclusions are clear and concise, thoroughly justified and applied without error. 
Organisation, communication and style. 5% Very poorly organised   Writing, grammar and spelling incomprehensible.     Poorly organised   Writing, grammar and spelling are at an unsatisfactory level.     Satisfactorily organised   Writing does not flow well.   Grammar and spelling are at a satisfactory level.    Several errors are present.   Good organisation   Writing mostly flowed well.
Grammar and spelling are of a good standard.   Few errors are evident.    
Very good organisation   Writing flowed clearly and coherently.   Grammar and spelling are of a high standard with very few errors present.   Excellent organisation   Exceptional flow, with excellent clarity and coherence.   Grammar and spelling are exemplary and error-free.    
Research and referencing. Cases and/or statutory provisions cited correctly (in text and at the end of the document) 10% GLO 3   GLO3       ULO3/GLO3 No evidence of research with no references included.   No attempt has been made at applying the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide.     (0-5.9 Marks) Incorrect or irrelevant references used to support the discussion.   Very little attempt has been made at applying the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) or it has not been applied correctly.     (6-9.9 Marks) References included and used to support discussion, but references are of questionable relevance. Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) has been applied satisfactorily, but with quite a few errors.   Adequate references included and used to support discussion.   Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) has been applied well, with some errors.   (12-13.9 Marks)   Relevant references included and used to effectively support discussion. Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) applied very well, with minimal errors.   Relevant and excellent references included and used to effectively support discussion. Excellent use of the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources), with no errors. (16-20 Marks)  
Overall mark 100% 0-19 20-49 50-69 60-69 70-79 80-100
Grade Fail (n) Pass (P) Credit (C) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD)
               

MLC101 Law for Commerce T2 2019 Assessment 2 Marking Rubric

 (Scenario Three)

Criteria YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD MEETS STANDARD EXCEEDS STANDARD
Not attempted Needs Improvement Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
Identification and definition of the principles.   GLO 1   20% No principles are identified or the definitions of the principles identified are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.               Principles are identified but not the correct principles. The definitions of the principles are either incomplete, or unclearly and/or inaccurately expressed.             The correct principles are identified.  The definitions of the principles are reasonably clear, however some aspects are incomplete and/or inaccurately expressed.           The correct principles are identified. The definitions of the principles are reasonably clear and complete, with some minor inaccuracies.         The correct principles are identified. The definitions of the principles are clear and complete, with very minor inaccuracies.         The correct principles are identified. The definitions of the principles are clear, precise and accurate.    
Identification of Conventions and cites legal rules (convention articles) relevant to the problem.   GLO 1,4  30%   No convention articles to support the legal rule.     Very few conventions articles cited to support the legal rules or those selected are irrelevant.   Some relevant convention articles cited to support the legal rules.  Some convention articles are of questionable relevance.      Most of the convention articles cited to support the legal rules. Few convention articles are of questionable relevance.     Almost all convention articles cited to support the legal rules.  The convention articles are all relevant.    All convention articles cited to support the legal rules.  All convention articles are relevant and exactly on point.
Criteria YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD MEETS STANDARD EXCEEDS STANDARD
Not attempted Needs Improvement Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
Application/analysis of legal rules to the factual problems. 20%  GLO 1,4 Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles is either absent or unintelligible.       Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles is unclear, incomplete and/or inaccurate. Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles demonstrates basic understanding, but lacks clarity, completeness, and/or accuracy. Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles is clear and accurate but lacks completeness.  Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles is clear, accurate and complete, with very minor flaws.   Analysis/application of the elements of the convention articles is thorough and concisely expressed, without flaw.  
Conclusion 5%   GLO 1,4 No conclusion or conclusions are unintelligible or without justification.   Conclusions lack justification and/or are expressed unclearly. The conclusions conflict with the analysis.    Conclusions are justified, but incomplete and inaccurate.  Conclusions at times conflict with the analysis. Conclusions are justified, with adequate clarity, but are incomplete with minor inaccuracies.  Conclusions are justified, clear and complete, with very minor inaccuracies. Conclusions are clear and concise, thoroughly justified and applied without error. 
Organisation, communication and style. 5% Very poorly organised   Writing, grammar and spelling incomprehensible.     Poorly organised   Writing, grammar and spelling are at an unsatisfactory level.     Satisfactorily organised   Writing does not flow well.   Grammar and spelling are at a satisfactory level.    Several errors are present.   Good organisation   Writing mostly flowed well.
Grammar and spelling are of a good standard.   Few errors are evident.    
Very good organisation   Writing flowed clearly and coherently.   Grammar and spelling are of a high standard with very few errors present.   Excellent organisation   Exceptional flow, with excellent clarity and coherence.   Grammar and spelling are exemplary and error-free.    
Research and referencing. Convention articles cited correctly (in text and at the end of the document) 20% GLO 3       ULO3/GLO3 No evidence of research with no references included.   No attempt has been made at applying the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide.     (0-5.9 Marks) Incorrect or irrelevant references used to support the discussion.   Very little attempt has been made at applying the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) or it has not been applied correctly.     (6-9.9 Marks) References included and used to support discussion, but references are of questionable relevance. Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) has been applied satisfactorily, but with quite a few errors.   Adequate references included and used to support discussion.   Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) has been applied well, with some errors.   (12-13.9 Marks)   Relevant references included and used to effectively support discussion. Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources) applied very well, with minimal errors.   Relevant and excellent references included and used to effectively support discussion. Excellent use of the Deakin Harvard Referencing Guide (particularly the rules regarding legal sources), with no errors. (16-20 Marks)  
Overall mark 100% 0-19 20-49 50-69 60-69 70-79 80-100
Grade Fail (n) Pass (P) Credit (C) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD)