Reference no: EM132992822

HI6027 Business and Corporate Law - Case Studies on Contract Law and Corporations Law

- Critically analyse the main features of the Australian Legal System and the foundations of company law.
- Critically analyse the basic principles of Contract, Tort, and privacy law and apply them in resolving legal issues arising in commercial transactions.
- Research and advocate the appropriateness of the different types of business structures and the legal environment in which they operate and their advantages and disadvantages in various commercial contexts.

Purpose:

The Group Assignment aims to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving three 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.

Part A: Contracts Law Question

• Read the Contracts Law question below.

• In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer your chosen question using the IRAC method.

• Your answer must be supported by relevant Australian law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 6 genuine and
relevant references are required for this part of the report.

• The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.

• In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.

Sierra Foxtrot Airport called for tenders for supplies of green seed for its runway surrounds, with a closing date of 1 June.

The following tenders were submitted:

• Green Grow hand-delivered its tender on 29 May, which went into the tender box.
• Sow This! posted its tender on 15 May. This letter was received by Sierra Foxtrot on 17 May, by being submitted so early, one of the administrative assistants filed it with the intention of later putting it in the box when she was properly organised.
• Grassy Plains posted its tender on 30 May. This letter arrived on 2 June but nevertheless was put into the tender box.

It transpired that only two of the tenders were considered by the relevant Sierra Foxtrot officers. The administrative assistant forgot where she had filed the Sow This! tender and did not find it again until a week after the decision was made. The tender by Sow This! was actually the lowest and contained the most attractive features.

Green Grow's tender was the next lowest, but Sierra Foxtrot had heard rumours about its unreliability. The airport, therefore, awarded the contract to Grassy Plains. Sierra Foxtrot posted a letter to Grassy Plains advising that its tender was successful. Unfortunately, this letter never reached Grassy Plains because it was destroyed by a disgruntled postal worker who had just been made redundant. Since it had not heard from Sierra Foxtrot, Grassy Plains instead committed its full stock of seed to another contract with a regional council.

Sierra Foxtrot became aware of the full situation concerning the tender by Sow This! and the position in which Grassy Plains now finds itself. It seeks advice concerning its contractual position in relation to all three tenders. Advise Sierra Foxtrot with reference to legal principles and rules taught on contract law.

Part B: Negligence question

• Read the questions below on Negligence.

• In 600 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the chosen given question.

• A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant Australian legal references are required for this part of the report. Examples of relevant references for this question include the Civil Liability Act (NSW); Australian cases; and Australian law textbooks.

• The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.

• In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.

On 3 April 2020, Madeline Burnett placed an advertisement in the Trading Post, a specialist newspaper, advertising a garage sale to be held at her home in the weekend of 5-6 April 2020. Madeline has previous experience in conducting garage sales. Such activities are common in the suburbs of Adelaide, where Madeline's home was situated, and elsewhere throughout Australia.

The first day of the garage sale, 5 April 2020, started out clear and sunny. Madeline's property included a concrete driveway extending from a carport annexed to the house to the public footpath and road. The driveway comprised sections of concrete joined in an expansion joint which extended throughout its length. Madeline placed a variety of domestic articles for sale on a trestle table situated on the southern side of the driveway close to the carport. Prospective purchasers had no alternative but to approach the goods by walking over the driveway. Madeline expected a volume of pedestrian traffic to attend the sale. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disparity in the levels of the adjoining concrete slabs in the forecourt of her home.

Darcie entered Madeline's premises at about 8:40 a.m. wearing slip-on shoes. She walked towards the trestle table. To do this, she had to cross the divide in the concrete slabs. An object caught her eye, presumably one of the garden or other items for sale on the trestle table. At that point, her right foot rolled on the elevation of one concrete slab as it adjoined the adjacent slab. Darcie, a woman then aged 53, fell towards the ground, touching it but then regaining her footing. In the course of this motion, she felt a crack in her right foot. This was later diagnosed as having caused a fracture.

Darcie sued Madeline in the Magistrates Court of South Australia, claiming damages for negligence. Using legal principles and rules learned on Negligence, advise Darcie on whether her case against Madeleine will be successful.

Part C: Corporations Law question (10 marks)

• Read the questions below on Corporations Law, specifically on Companies and Incorporated Associations.

• In 400 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer the chosen given question.

• A minimum of 3 genuine and relevant Australian legal 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).

Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd ("Bluff") owns 50% of the shares of Life Electronics ("Life Electronics") Pty Ltd. Last year, Bluff was contacted by Alphacoms Pty Ltd ("Alphacoms"), which owns the other 50% of bluff. Alphacoms wanted to invest a large sum of money in Life Electronics, to allow it to research and develop a potentially valuable software application. The directors of Bluff at the time hired a team of consultants, which included a software applications expert, and instructed them to research the technical aspects of the proposed application and future possibilities involving the technology.

The team of consultants worked for three months researching for and writing the report. The report they presented to Bluff's directors showed that the proposed investment in the software application could very likely prove successful. Jerry Robinson is one of Bluff's directors. He holds a Masters of Computer Programming degree from a well-known university. Jerry's fellow directors asked him about the consultants' positive projections. Jerry told them that the report is accurate. In reality though, some of the information in the report was not well-researched and supported by up to date data. As a result, when Bluff's directors rely on the report and invest the company's money in the new software application, the investment will not be as lucrative as the consultants predicted.

Citing specific common law and Corporations Act directors duties, critically analyse and discuss whether the directors of Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd (or any of them) breached their duty of care?

Attachment:- Business and Corporate Law.rar