Student: Stanley

LAW Assignment (Due In 2 Days)

->Must be 100% original work / Plagiarism Free -> Please download attachment (It's size 22 mb, bcoz attached few study ppt) & follow all instruction of my notes & Application format COMMERCIAL LAW M Problem Solving Exercise Part 2 DUE; 1st May 1,600 words max THIS ASSIGNMENT HAS TWO QUESTIONS AND BOTH QUESTIONS HAVE AN EQUAL VALUE Use the template provided on the website to analyse the following scenario and submit it via Gradebook. Note that the template has a feedback sheet which can help guide you in your answer. You can use Harvard or AGLC referencing. You can find a link for information on both here Penalty for late submissions = 10% (-10 MARKS) PER EACH DAY LATE eg score 60% but 1 day late = final result of 50%. Please note ‘traffic jams’ sometimes happen with Gradebook close to the closing time and prevent submissions, making them late. You are advised to submit well within time. Note also, penalty for excessive word count – 10% leeway. When you submit, Turnitin automatically generates a similarity report which is used to report students to the Academic Integrity Officer. You are advised to take note of any high percentages and to make sure you have not plagiarized by referencing appropriately. About 30% of this report will be due to use of the template which includes the cover sheet. If submitting early to check the report, you can resubmit but be sure to use the same file name. Objectives assessed by this assessment o Display knowledge of major aspects of formation of a company and o Apply legal methodology to a study of the law of corporations law Graduate qualities assessed:- knowledge, effective problem solving, ability to work autonomously, and communicate effectively. ************************************************************************** QUESTION 1 – contract terms Xing owns a food delivery business and attends Ace Trucks Company Limited to purchase a new truck. During the negotiations she discusses various matters about her requirements. The salesman is very keen to sell Xing a truck and tells her about a new refrigeration system in the company’s latest trucks. After considerable discussion, Xing signs a standard contract for the purchase of one of the latest trucks. After she collects the truck, she finds that it does not have the new refrigeration system which the salesman described. The system is the same as in her old truck and she knows from experience this is not reliable. On checking the written contract, she finds there is no mention of which refrigeration system is included in the truck. Furious with the salesman, Xing wants to return the truck, claiming that there has been a breach of a term of the contract. Using cases to support your reasons, discuss the legal arguments which both sides will raise about this breach and conclude which is the stronger. QUESTION 2 – contract discharge In November 2018 Jack, the owner of two large transport trucks designed to carry ten cars each, made a contract with the owners of Acme Cars Australia Co Ltd to carry 40 cars a week between Adelaide and Melbourne for the next two years. The agreed contract price was $800 per car per week. At the time of signing the contract Jack’s weekly fuel cost was $6,000 and wages and other costs totalled $16,000. By June 2019 Jack’s fuel costs had risen to $8,500 and his other costs had increased to $20,000. On July 1, 2019 Jack contacted Acme asking that the contract carrying price per car be increased from $800 to $900 per car per week. Acme declined on the grounds that the contract price was fixed in November 2018 for two years. Jack replied to the effect that the original contract had been ended by the totally unexpected huge increases in oil prices, brought about by cyclones and floods, which had caused the increases in fuel and other costs and therefore a new contract was now required. Using cases to support your reasons, discuss the legal arguments which both sides will raise and conclude which is the stronger. Question 1 (800 words) Question 2 (800 Words) = 1600 words COML5009 COMMERCIAL LAW M (Plz read all attached file carefully) 100% Plagiarism free work, I am from AUSTRALIAN Uni, so must be write on AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM & contract law 1st assignment which u hv done I hv received F (30%), so I need to at least 80% in this assignment. I hv wrote 1st assignment professor comment in last page. Answer must be submit on template & Reference harvard style I hv attached Sample Example (Writing Format) & Application of IRAC example. Must be writing both question 1 & 2 in this format style. (800+800 Words each) Course Study chapter DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS Happens by - Performance Agreement Frustration Breach Contract Law - Discharge & Remedies Contract Law - Formation of contracts Contract Law - Terms of the contract Contract Law - Matters affecting the enforceability of a contract Business Structures; Corporations Law - Incorporation & Fundraising Corporations Law - Dealing with Outsiders Professor comment/feedback of 1st assignment which u hv done, I hv received F (30%)… Plz don’t mistake below Use of IRAC (Writing Style Format) is recommended to add to the clarity of your work and aid with your problem solving. Your arguments are not clear. On your facts, the issue is whether or not there is an agreement between Xing and Zak. Specifically consider the law with regard to offer and acceptance, revocation and electronic communications. Proof read to ensure clarity of your work. Revocation of offer? Greater application of the relevant law to your facts is required. Step through the facts in chronological order and apply the law to each event in order to establish invitation to treat, offer, revocation (whether effective or not), acceptance. On your facts, Zak has accepted before Xing has revoked the offer. Review Harvard Referencing Guide to ensure that you adhere to referencing style requirements. An example of the answer (based on IRAC) of this problem. Issue: Will Crazy be personally liable for any harm he has done to the partnership? Law: • An agent has a duty to follow instructions or they will be personally liable for the breach (Bertram v Armstrong & Co v Godfray (1830) 12 ER 364). • An agent should pass on to the principle any information relevant to the agency that any reasonable agent would consider relevant in the ordinary course of business (Neeson v Wrightson NMA Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 236). • An agent has a duty of care to carry out instructions with due care and skill or will be liable in the tort of negligence (Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd [1984] WAR 365). • Doctrine of the undisclosed principle (Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497). • Partnership Act (SA) 1891 s 6 – binding • Partnership Act (SA) 1891 s 9 – liability of the partnership Application: Crazy did not follow Bill’s instructions, when he bound the partnership (Partnership Act (SA) 1891 s 6) to a contract to sell all the seedlings to Mad Wilbur, because he did not discuss the volume of seedlings to be sold with Bill. He was only a special agent with limited authority (reference the textbook here p336). Consequently he has breached his duty as an agent to follow instructions and he will be personally liable for the breach (Bertram v Armstrong & Co v Godfray (1830) 12 ER 364). Crazy may also be liable for a breach of a duty to communicate. The test is whether the number of seedlings in the contract could be considered to be in the ordinary course of business (Neeson v Wrightson NMA Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 236). The facts do not give an indication as to whether Bill had given Crazy a good explanation of the business to understand how many seedling he might sell at a time before there would be volume issues. This was also the first sales contract and it would be hard to suggest there is an ‘ordinary course of business’ until there had been more contracts. Therefore it is unlikely Crazy has breached his duty to communicate in this circumstance. Be careful not to mix the communication and instruction breaches. Likewise is would be hard to argue Crazy has breached his duty of care on the facts. Perhaps if the agency agreement had a history of transactions it could be said that selling all the seedlings in one contract could be a breach. Therefore Crazy was not negligent unless other facts suggested otherwise (Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd [1984] WAR 365). Another fact that may weigh in the partnerships favour is whether Mad Wilbur knew Crazy John was acting for the partnership. If Bill and Ben could provide evidence that he did not know then Crazy could be liable under the doctrine of the undisclosed principle (reference the textbook here p352; Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497). Conclusion: Based on the facts Crazy is likely to be liable for the losses of the contract breach for not following instructions. He should see if he can renegotiate the terms of the contract so the number of seedling is something the partnership can cope with or perhaps negotiate the time frame for delivery. He should seek legal counsel. List of References. …………………………….. ……………………………….. GRADES AND EXPECTATIONS (Original: Gerard Stone, adapted: Krys Sawon) Assignment marking is frequently an inexact area. This is due to the fact that assignments in business degrees often involve critical evaluation and forming logical arguments. Nevertheless, the following is offered as guidance regarding the grades that are used in business course assignments at UniSA. Markers refer to these guidelines. Firstly, please note that we do not mark your effort but the standard of your work. Often there will be a clear link between time spent on a task and the quality of the final product. However, this is not always the case. Also, expectations of markers will increase as you progress from first to second to final year in your studies and presentation certainly affects the grade you will receive. Pass Level 1 (55% to 64%): An average standard. Being awarded this grade indicates that you have been successful in this piece of assessment and that all essential matters have been addressed. On the whole, your work satisfies the requirements and identifies and explains the key issues. It demonstrates an ability to analyse and present a logical argument, however there may be some flaws in logic or the argument may be incomplete. There is little demonstration of independence of thought. Please note that this is the average grade and achievement of this grade indicates the work submitted is of an acceptable standard and if this level of performance is maintained it will ensure success. It is hoped that the majority of students will not be willing to settle for just an average grade. In order to achieve a result in excess of a Pass Level 1 something must differentiate your assignment from the average piece of work. Credit (65% to 74%): Above average standard. Generally, your work demonstrates an understanding of the materials and issues going beyond mere reproduction of content. You have presented a logical analysis and argument in relation to the issues. However, the ability to weigh up alternative arguments and form clear and considered recommendations is not adequately demonstrated. While your work demonstrates some of the qualities of a Distinction grade, it lacks total completeness and the high standard required to achieve that grade. Distinction (75% to 84%): A high standard. Overall, your work is very well presented and demonstrates a comprehensive awareness and understanding of the issues. It also reflects your ability to form a logical argument, consider and weigh up alternative views and provide personal viewpoints which are justified. High Distinction (85% +): Exceptional quality. Overall, your work demonstrates a comprehensive awareness and understanding of all the issues and demonstrates in an interesting or challenging way, originality and proficiency in all the relevant areas that are assessed. It also reflects your ability to consider and weigh up alternative views, form logical and well formulated arguments, present personal viewpoints and provide justified recommendations. Presentation is of a publishable standard. In our law courses, particularly in problem solving, we would expect our students to move through patterns of recognising an issue, explaining it with theory, applying it to the problem and arguing alternatives. Distinction students will do all of these well. Theory must have some application to show some understanding - theory only would not pass. For those students who do not achieve at the average grade of a Pass Level 1 that is expected from all students, the following comments offer some guidance as to why that level was not achieved. Pass Level 2 (50% to 54%): A satisfactory standard. Overall, your work satisfies requirements but only at a basic level. Most key issues have been identified and explained but the analysis is superficial. Your argument is difficult to follow and few conflicting/alternative viewpoints have been considered with very limited ability to weight up alternative positions demonstrated. Presentation may also be an issue. Fail Level 1 (40% to 49%): An unsatisfactory to poor standard. There is evidence of a lack of understanding of the assessable task and course content. Overall, your work is too descriptive and fails to demonstrate the ability to understand the key issues and form an argument. Many of the key issues may have been identified and explained but analysis is minimal. Your work provides little indication of independence of thought or ability to provide personal viewpoints which are justified. There may be an overuse or inappropriate use of quotes. It is likely that presentation is also of an unsatisfactory standard. Fail Level 2 (less than 40%): A very poor standard. Clear lack of understanding or thought. Your work fails to meet any of the requirements. The key issues are not adequately identified or explained and your work indicates little understanding of the issues. There is no (or limited) attempt at analysis and presentation is unsatisfactory. Reference must be write in harvard style reference Fitzpatrick, Jeffrey, Symes, C., Veljanovski, A., Parker, D., BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW, (LexisNexis Butterworths 4th ed, 2019) CONTRACT SECTION Graw Stephen, INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF CONTRACT, (Law Book Company 8th ed, 2015) (OR 7th Ed) CORPORATIONS SECTION Ciro, Tony & Symes, Christopher, CORPORATIONS LAW - IN PRINCIPLE, (Law Book Company 9th ed, 2015) (OR 8th Ed) Lipton Phillip, Hertzberg A., Welsh M., UNDERSTANDING COMPANY LAW, (Law Book Company 18th ed, 2016) (OR older Ed) Yogaratnam, Jeswynn, & Xynas, Lidia, CORPORATIONS LAW - IN PRINCIPLE, (Law Book Company 10th ed, 2017)

Budget: $31.00

Due on: April 30, 2020 00:00

Posted: 12 months ago.

Answers (0)