Legal Analysis of Negligence and Misleading Conduct in Australian Business Law: A Dual Case Study Approach
- Subject Code :
LAWS401
- University :
Southern Cross University Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
LAWS401 BUSINESS LAW
|
Assessment Overview |
|
|
Assessment |
AT1 Individual Legal Research Report (30%) |
|
Mark |
30 |
|
Due Date |
11.55pm Sunday, Week 5 |
|
Word limit |
3000 (Including References) |
|
Submission format |
PDF (.pdf) or Word (.doc) for the report |
|
Submission method |
Via the Turnitin Dropbox on eLearning |
|
Other requirements |
Use 12 pt font Double-space your document to allow room for feedback State your name and student number in the document header State the word count in the document header Include a bibliography Comply with the APA referencing style |
|
Assessment Details |
|
|
For this assessment, students are required to submit a written legal research report of 3000 words on a lecturer/tutor assigned case study of an organisation confronting problems that will require legal solution. Students must explain the key legal principles applying to the problem and demonstrate skills in case analysis, research and statutory interpretation within the Australian legal system. |
|
|
Important discussion points for consideration in your assessment-Casestudies |
|
|
For this assessment, you are provided with two case studies based on legal principles. You are required to submit a written legal research report addressing issues that require legal resolution. Your task is to explain the key legal principles relevant to the problem while demonstrating proficiency in case analysis, legal research, and statutory interpretation within the Australian legal system. The report must apply the IRAC method to case analysis and be 3000 words in length. Specifically, for each of the cases, you should cover the components below: I. Issue o Identify the legal question or issue that needs to be resolved. This is the problem or conflict that the court must address.
II. Rule o State the relevant laws or legal principles that apply to the issue. This includes statutes, regulations, and case law. |
|
III. Application (or Analysis)
- Apply the rule to the facts of the This is where you analyze how the rule interacts with the specific circumstances of the issue.
- Conclusion
- Provide a conclusion based on the application (analysis). This is the answer to the issue, summarizing the outcome of the analysis.
Please note that you need to analysis both the cases.
Case 1:
Rachel Mawson went to swim at Rickson Swimming Centre in Darwin. After swimming in the pool for about 1 hour, she decided to use the iron pool ladder to get out of the swimming pool. Unknown to her, the first step of the iron ladder which was inside the pool was damaged with sharp iron surface and edges. As Rachel stepped on it. Her right foot was severely injured, and she had to spend days in the hospital.
If Rachel Mawson decides to pursue a negligence claim against Rickson Swimming Centre, as a legal advisor, you are tasked with advising the Centre on its potential liability in negligence.
What must Rickson Swimming Centre prove, and how might the outcome change if a warning notice had been posted about the damaged ladder? What defenses could Rickson Swimming Centre raise in response to a negligence claim?
Case 2:
FreshFizz Pty Ltd, a soft drink manufacturer, advertises that its new beverage contains 100% natural ingredients and boosts immune health. However, an independent investigation reveals that the drink contains artificial preservatives and has no proven health benefits. A group of consumers claim they were misled by the advertisement.
Applying section 18 and section 29 of the ACL, analyze whether FreshFizz Pty Ltd has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. What legal consequences might the company face?
|
Marking criteria: Refer to the marking rubrics below. |
|
Late Submission |
|
You must complete the AT1 on the due date and time. You may be penalised for failing to submit an assessment task on time. If you do not have authorisation, you may be penalised five (5) percent of awarded marks per day for up to five (5) days; thereafter your submission may not be accepted, and you may be awarded zero marks. If you are unable to submit an assessment task on time for any reason, contact a Student Support Officer via the Course Communication tile on the eLearning portal. |
|
Special Consideration |
|
If you miss the AT1 ONLY for the following reasons, you may apply for special consideration: acute illness or loss or bereavement or hardship/trauma or technological problems which could not be anticipated or avoided To apply for special consideration, fill in the following form and attach evidence to support your reason for seeking special consideration (with 5 days of the due date). oSpecial Consideration Application Form Link If your reason is invalid, if you do not provide evidence, or if your application is not made within 5 days of the due date, your application might be rejected. |
|
UseofArtificialIntelligence(AI): You must comply with the requirements of each assessment task. If an assessment permits the use of AI (always check assessment requirements whether you are permitted to use AI), make sure to properly acknowledge this, and ensure that your submission is substantially your own work. If the use of AI is not permitted in an assessment, please follow the requirement. Unauthorised use of AI will be penalised. |
AT1 Individual Legal Research Report (30%)
|
High Distinction (85-100) |
Distinction (75-84) |
Credit (65-74) |
Pass (50-64) |
Fail (0-49) |
|
|
Legal Concepts and Capacity to make a strong argument in writing |
Demonstrated a sophisticated understanding and knowledge of the legal concepts. Makes clear and/or coherent and/or sufficient argument in response to the question. Structure of argument is well developed. |
Demonstrated highly developed understanding and knowledge of the legal concepts. Makes clear and sound argument in response to the question. Structure of argument discernible. |
Demonstrated thorough understanding and knowledge of the legal concepts Makes clear and well-developed argument in response to the question Structure of argument discernible and well developed |
Demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the legal concepts Makes clear and sound argument in response to the question. Structure of argument discernible |
Demonstrated no or little knowledge of the legal concepts Makes unclear and/or incoherent and/or insufficient argument in response to the question. Structure of argument difficult to discern |
|
Identification and knowledge of the relevant legal and policy issues. Critically analyze the nature of law by applying theory |
Strong articulation of relevant legal and/or policy issues. Makes very advanced connections between the legal and/or policy issues and theory. Very strong ability to critically analyze and apply theory. |
Good articulation of relevant legal and/or policy issues. Makes advanced connections between the legal and/or policy issues and theory. Strong ability to critically analyze and apply theory |
Correctly articulates relevant legal and/or policy issues. Makes in-depth connections between the legal and/or policy issues and theory. Good ability to critically analyze and apply theory. |
Correctly describes relevant legal and/or policy issues. Confuses some legal and/or policy issues. Basic ability to critically analyze and apply theory. |
Shows significant confusion or lack of understanding of relevant legal and/or policy issues. Inability to critically analyze and apply theory |
|
Depth and credibility of Research |
Demonstrated substantial and extensive research by thoroughly supporting work with an adept selection and range of relevant sources. |
Demonstrated substantial research by supporting work with a comprehensive selection of relevant sources. |
Demonstrated substantial research by supporting work with a sufficient selection of mostly relevant sources. |
Demonstrated a basic level of research by supporting work with an adequate selection of sources. |
Evidence of research is missing, or research lacks focus and/or have chosen unsuitable or fictitious sources. |
|
Structure, grammar and referencing |
Logically and succinctly structured the content to create a cohesive and coherent analytical piece of work. Used advanced English. Consistently adhered to grammar and punctuation |
Logically structured the content to create a cohesive and coherent analytical piece of work. Used plain English. Generally adhered to grammar and punctuation conventions. Always adhered to the |
Logically structured the content to create descriptive pieces of work. Occasionally used plain English. Mostly followed grammar and punctuation conventions. Mostly followed |
Partially structured the content into loosely linked rudimentary paragraphs to create a comprehensible descriptive piece of work. Occasionally used plain English. Mostly followed |
Partially structured the content. Used language that was difficult to understand or not suited for the task. Did not accurately proofread the work before submission. |
|
conventions. No spelling errors. Accurately and consistently adhered to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. |
Australian Guide to Legal Citation. |
the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. |
grammar and punctuation conventions. Followed some of the AGLC. |
Only loosely followed the AGLC. |
