CLWM 4000 Home Appliances Store Case Study

Assessment 1 InformationSubject Code:
CLWM4000
Subject Name:
Business and Corporations Law
Assessment Title:
Case Study
Assessment Type:
Individual Written Advice
Word Count:
1,500
Weighting:
30 %
Total Marks:
30
Submission:
Online via My KBS
Due Date:
Week 5
Words
(+/-10%)
Your Task
Apply the IRAC legal analysis structure to resolve Business and Corporations Law issues.
Assessment Description
A structured, analytical approach to Corporations Law issues is the basis of effective management and resolution
of legal problems. It demonstrates a graduate’s proficiency in legal research, critical thinking, problem-solving, and
attention to detail, skills highly valued by employers in the corporate environment.
The Learning Outcomes you will demonstrate in performing this assessment include:
LO2:
Describe the key specific areas of law that regulate commerce in Australia
LO3:
Determine the rights and duties of different parties to a commercial transaction based
on analysis of case law and legislation
LO4:
Understand the principles of business and corporations law and how they apply to you
as business advisers and accountants
Assessment Instructions
1. Attend the Assessment 1 Preparation Workshop (details to be posted in the Subject Announcements).
2. Read the Case Study made available to you on Monday of Week 2.
3. Prepare a written answer in Word following the IRAC structure of Issue, Rule, Application, and
Conclusion.
4. Submit your Word document by uploading to MyKBS by the due date.
Access assessment presentation guidelines here: https://elearning.kbs.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=245257
Academic references are not required for this assessment.
Please refer to the assessment marking guide to assist you in completing all the assessment criteria.
Page 1
Document Classification: Public
Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V2
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating,
plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
•
•
•
•
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
The answers to these questions can be accessed at https://www.kbs.edu.au/about-us/school-policies.
Length Limits for Assessments
Penalties may be applied for assessment submissions that exceed prescribed limits.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on
the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Further details can be accessed at
https://elearning.kbs.edu.au/course/view.php?id=1481
Page 2
Document Classification: Public
Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V2
Assessment Marking Guide
QUESTION 1
Criteria
F (Fail)
0%-49%
Issue not clearly identified or
not relevant
P (Pass)
50%-64%
Issue identified at least
partially relevant
CR (Credit)
65%-74%
Issue identified mostly
relevant
D (Distinction)
75% – 84%
Issue identified
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Issue identified highly
relevant
Mark
Rule
No reference made to
statutory law or relevant
case law or law discussed
not relevant to the issue
identified.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
but not discussed in detail
or appropriately cited.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
Relevant statutory and
case law referenced and
discussed in detail with
appropriate citation
Highly relevant statutory
and case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
(3 marks)
Application
No attempt made to apply
relevant statutory or case
law to the issue or law
incorrectly applied.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to the
issue with reasonable
clarity.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to
the issue with
reasonable clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Relevant statutory or case
law applied to the issue
with clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Highly relevant statutory
and case law applied to
the issue with a high
degree of clarity and
demonstrated advanced
level understanding.
(4 marks)
Conclusion
No logical conclusion or
erroneous conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the issue
identified or conclusion does
not resolve the issue
identified.
Reasonable conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the relevant
law to the issue identified
that at least partially
resolves the issue.
Credible conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that resolves
the issue.
Logical conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the
issue identified.
Comprehensive
conclusion drawn based
upon application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that thoroughly
resolves the issue.
(2 marks)
Issue
Comments
Page 3
Document Classification: Public
(1 marks)
(10 marks)
Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V2
QUESTION 2
Criteria
F (Fail)
0%-49%
Issue not clearly identified or
not relevant
P (Pass)
50%-64%
Issue identified at least
partially relevant
CR (Credit)
65%-74%
Issue identified mostly
relevant
D (Distinction)
75% – 84%
Issue identified
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Issue identified highly
relevant
Mark
Rule
No reference made to
statutory law or relevant
case law or law discussed
not relevant to the issue
identified.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
but not discussed in detail
or appropriately cited.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
Relevant statutory and
case law referenced and
discussed in detail with
appropriate citation
Highly relevant statutory
and case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
(3 marks)
Application
No attempt made to apply
relevant statutory or case
law to the issue or law
incorrectly applied.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to the
issue with reasonable
clarity.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to
the issue with
reasonable clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Relevant statutory or case
law applied to the issue
with clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Highly relevant statutory
and case law applied to
the issue with a high
degree of clarity and
demonstrated advanced
level understanding.
(4 marks)
Conclusion
No logical conclusion or
erroneous conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the issue
identified or conclusion does
not resolve the issue
identified.
Reasonable conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the relevant
law to the issue identified
that at least partially
resolves the issue.
Credible conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that resolves
the issue.
Logical conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the
issue identified.
Comprehensive
conclusion drawn based
upon application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that thoroughly
resolves the issue.
(2 marks)
Issue
Comments
Page 4
Document Classification: Public
(1 marks)
(10 marks)
Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V2
QUESTION 3
Criteria
F (Fail)
0%-49%
Issue not clearly identified or
not relevant
P (Pass)
50%-64%
Issue identified at least
partially relevant
CR (Credit)
65%-74%
Issue identified mostly
relevant
D (Distinction)
75% – 84%
Issue identified
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Issue identified highly
relevant
Mark
Rule
No reference made to
statutory law or relevant
case law or law discussed
not relevant to the issue
identified.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
but not discussed in detail
or appropriately cited.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
Relevant statutory and
case law referenced and
discussed in detail with
appropriate citation
Highly relevant statutory
and case law referenced
and discussed in detail
with appropriate citation.
(3 marks)
Application
No attempt made to apply
relevant statutory or case
law to the issue or law
incorrectly applied.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to the
issue with reasonable
clarity.
Mostly relevant statutory
or case law applied to
the issue with
reasonable clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Relevant statutory or case
law applied to the issue
with clarity and
demonstrated
understanding.
Highly relevant statutory
and case law applied to
the issue with a high
degree of clarity and
demonstrated advanced
level understanding.
(4 marks)
Conclusion
No logical conclusion or
erroneous conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the issue
identified or conclusion does
not resolve the issue
identified.
Reasonable conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the relevant
law to the issue identified
that at least partially
resolves the issue.
Credible conclusion
drawn based upon
application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that resolves
the issue.
Logical conclusion drawn
based upon application of
the relevant law to the
issue identified.
Comprehensive
conclusion drawn based
upon application of the
relevant law to the issue
identified that thoroughly
resolves the issue.
(2 marks)
Issue
Comments
Page 5
Document Classification: Public
(1 marks)
(10 marks)
Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V2
Assessment 1 Case Study
Caroline is an Australian supermodel who began an intensive fitness program to prepare for her
appearance in a TV Commercial for gym equipment. She knew that she needed to be very fit. In
addition to her fitness program, she decided to consult a dietician about what sort of food she
should eat. The dietician suggested that she have at least one protein smoothie every day. Caroline
researched a range of blenders that might suit her needs. At her local electrical store, she found that
the only blenders for sale there did not meet her needs as they were not powerful enough to
produce smoothies.
Caroline kept looking. She had heard good things about the Home Appliances Store so she decided
to go there to purchase a blender that met her needs. She was very happy to find that a blender was
on sale at the Home Appliances Store. A sign advertising the blender stated:
It is high quality, superb, safe and durable.
You won’t regret it.
She purchased the blender and kept her receipt. Once home, she unpackaged the blender and as
soon as she plugged it in, the upper lid came off and the sharp blades flew out, badly injuring her
right hand.
At the hospital, a doctor explained to Caroline that she would need stitches in her hand, and she
would be unable to use her hand for four weeks unless the cut had healed, so the stitches could be
removed. Caroline was very upset when she realised that she would not be able to participate in the
planned TV Commercial and that another supermodel would have to take her place. This also meant
she would lose the $12,000 fee that she would have received for the commercial.
QUESTION 1 (10 Marks)
Use the IRAC method to advise Caroline if she entered into a contract with Home Appliances Store.
You will need to address the essential elements of a simple contract including offer and acceptance,
intention to be legally bound, and consideration.
QUESTION 2 (10 Marks)
Use the IRAC method to advise Caroline if the contract is voidable or void.
You will need to address the elements of a valid contract including capacity, legality, genuine
consent, mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and unconscionability.
QUESTION 3 (10 Marks)
Use the IRAC method to advise to advise Caroline about the remedies she may seek under Contract
Law in Australia.
Page 1
Assessment 1 Case Study
Document Classification: Public
Kaplan Business School