WEIGHT:          This assessment is worth 30% of the total marks for this course.

WORD LIMIT: Your answer to Question 1 (Hypothetical ILAC Question) must be no longer than 1000 words.

Your answer to Question 2 & 3 must be no longer than 1000 words.

INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:

Students may refer to course materials and textbooks to answer the questions.

This is an individual assessment item and not a group assignment. Accordingly, each student must submit a separate assignment.

It is recommended that you use the text-matching service prescribed for this course prior to submitting your written assessment. This service can aid in understanding plagiarism and the importance of proper attribution of any borrowed content. Please read the instructions in Section 6.1 of the Course Profile.

Please read the marking criteria for the assignment provided under the Assessment tab of L@GU.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Question 1

Student answers to the hypothetical question (Question 1) must be written under the framework of

• Issue, Law, Application and Conclusion (ILAC).

You will be assessed on:

• depth of understanding of the question and identification of relevant ‘Issues’;
  • accuracy of the ‘Law’ (cases and legislation) used to support arguments;
  • the extent to which you have applied the law to the issues and argued as required by the question;
  • correct spelling, grammar, and proofreading.

Questions 2 & 3:

• DO NOT use ILAC and DO NOT summarise the law.

• Apply the law and identify the relevant sections of legislation and/or case law in your answer.

Referencing Cases: example – Roufos v Brewster (in italics) (year of the case and other details need not be provided). Please note:

• The questions cover Australian Consumer Law and Law of Negligence.
• Law: DO NOT write a detailed explanation of the legal rules under the “Law” heading. Please provide only the ‘names of case law’ or relevant sections of legislation under ‘‘Law’, that will be referred to in the ‘application of law’ part of your answer along with a short description of a few words identifying the legal principle established in these authorities.
  • Application of Law to the Facts:      Please refer to the case names when you write the application of law to the facts of the question. This is the most important part of your answer.
  • Conclusion: You only need one ‘conclusion’ at the end of each question.
  • A List of Cases or References (Bibliography) is NOT required.
  • You may discuss the questions with other students. However, your final answer must be your own work. Penalties apply for plagiarism. Plagiarism basically means copying

another person’s work and claiming it as your own.

Formatting Instructions:

• The assignment must demonstrate the presentation, writing and literacy skills.
  • Your answer must be typed in 12point font.
  • Answers should use single line spacing to acceptably answer the assignment.
  • Acceptable fonts are Arial, Century Gothic or Times New Roman. It is recommended that your answers are single-spaced to allow you sufficient space to answer the question thoroughly.
  • You should have your student’s name, and student number clearly visible. Pages should be numbered.

Submission Instructions:

• When submitting to Turnitin or SafeAssign please ensure your submission filename includes: Your name, student number and the words “Assignment Final”. For example, Student’s Name_1002003_AssignmentFinal.
• Please only submit Microsoft Word documents.
• DO NOT include a direct copy of these instructions, the ILAC scenario or rubric in your submissions. If you do, your paper will be very closely scrutinised for plagiarism.
• Please submit your final assignment to be marked into the “FINAL – Assignment Submission Point”, NOT the DRAFT folder. Staff will only check and mark the copy of your assignment submitted into the “FINAL – Assignment Submission Point”.
• Submission points are located in the Learning@Griffith course website under Assessment.
• A draft SafeAssign Submission Point is also available for you to check your work under Assessment.
• You will be given one (1) attempt to submit your assignment. Make sure you obtain and retain the proof of your final submission by taking a screen capture or a print screen of your computer screen once your assignment has been submitted. If there is an error in uploading your assignment, late penalties will apply unless evidence can be provided that it was submitted before the due date. It is the responsibility of each student to ensure that they retain the proof of their submission. For example, if a blank document is submitted the student will be awarded “0”.

Late Submissions:

An assessment item submitted after the due time on the due date set by the Course Convenor, without an approved extension, will be penalised. The standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 5 percent (%) of the total weighted mark for the assessment item, for each calendar day that the item is late. Assessment items submitted more than seven calendar days after the due date will be awarded zero marks.

Additional Instructions:

Please write your ILAC answer using full sentences and paragraphs. Bullet points are not appropriate for this assignment (except in listing the legal issues as questions and the Law section of your response, as per the model answers provided in workshops).

Question 1 & 2

Carole Maher is interested in purchasing ”Going to the Dogs,” a dog grooming and clothing business in Southport, Queensland. Carol inspects the business premises and is impressed with the number of dogs on site and the range of dog-wear available for sale including hats, pants, waistcoats, shoes, beauty products and novelty wear such as Halloween and Christmas costumes.

Carole asks Sebastian Palmer, the vendor what is the maximum number of dogs which he can have at any one time on site. Sebastian responds there is capacity for 50 dogs daily at the rented premises. Carole asks Sebastian how much he has invested in the dog-wear stock.

Sebastian responds he currently owns $100,000 in dog-wear stock. Carole is very interested in buying the business and asks Sebastian the sale price. Sebastian responds that he wants no less than $250,000 but that there are a number of potential buyers interested, such that the price may be driven higher.

Carole is impatient to buy the business, so she contacts her accountant Walter Webb asking if he can provide a business valuation report of “Going to the Dogs”. Unfortunately, Walter is about to begin his much-needed vacation but, as Carole is a valued client, Walter arranges for his newly employed graduate accountant Harry Finn to prepare the valuation statement for Carole. Walter tells Harry that, although he will be on vacation, Harry should contact him if he has any issues with the valuation report.

Harry wants to impress Walter, so he doesn’t tell Harry he has never valued a business before. Harry obtains copies of the “Going to the Dogs” financial accounts from Sebastian Palmer and, using his research skills and Google, prepares a valuation report for Carole Maher. Harry does not visit “Going to the Dogs” premises, nor does he investigate any potential risks arising from having 50 dogs on site nor does he audit the financial accounts provided by Sebastian. Harry provides his valuation report to Carole, who is very keen to buy as Harry has valued “Going to the Dogs” at $300,000.

Harry suggests that Carole wait for Walter to return, but Carole wants to secure ownership of

“Going to the Dogs” as soon as possible. Carole contacts Sebastian Palmer and offers him

$250,000, thinking she is getting a bargain. Sebastian accepts and, after the contract is concluded, Carole is the new owner of “Going to the Dogs.”

Six months later, “Going to the Dogs” is making an extremely small profit. Although Sebastian stated the business had a capacity for 50 dogs, the local council ordinances provide that only 15 dogs can be on the premises at any one time. The range of dog-wear which Carole had

admired so much was not owned by “Going to the Dogs” but was consignment stock. The lease of the premises is about to expire. Carole has approached her landlord but he is not interested in offering Carole a new lease as he wishes to redevelop the site. Carole contacts Walter, threatening to sue him for his negligent business valuation of “Going to the Dogs”. Walter asks Harry to provide him with a copy of his valuation report workpapers, including his due diligence work on the financial records provided by Sebastian Palmer. Harry admits to Walter that he

didn’t complete any due diligence work and that he has never heard of the term before.

Question 1                                                                                           14 marks

Advise Carole Maher if either Harry Finn or Walter Web are liable for negligent misstatement in preparing and providing the valuation report to Carole.

Students’ answers to Question 1 must be written under the framework of – Issue, Law, Application, and Conclusion (ILAC)

Question 2                                                                                          8 marks

Advise Carole Maher if she can recover any damages from Sebastian Palmer under the

Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth) and relevant case law.

Students do not use ILAC and DO NOT summarise the law.

Apply the law and identify the relevant sections of legislation and/or case law in your answer.

Question 3                                                                                          8 marks

Jed Clampett, a farmer, is poorly educated and unable to read or write. Jed leased a tractor from the local tractor retailer, Don Drysdale. Don Drysdale, who knew of Jed’s inability to read or write, filled in the lease agreement but did not advise Jed to obtain independent advice before entering the agreement, nor did he advise Jed of the lease terms, including an oppressive interest rate. Don Drysdale also insisted that Jed sign the lease documents immediately, although Don gave no reasons for the urgency. The interest payments are crippling Jed financially.

Can Jed’s lease agreement be made void on the grounds that Don Drysdale has engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth)?

Students do not use ILAC and DO NOT summarise the law.

Apply the law and identify the relevant sections of legislation and/or case law in your answer.

~ END OF HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS ~

Get expert help for 2110AFE – PROBLEM-SOLVING ASSIGNMENT and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!