Monash University Business Law Case Study

RMIT Classification: TrustedAT 2 Tasks
Sem 1 2023
Program Name:
Associate Degree Business; Diploma of Commerce
Course(s)
Business Law: LAW2477/2497
Assessment Task
Teacher Name &
Contact Details
Total Marks
DUE DATE
No:2 Research Assignment Semester 1 2023
30% overall total for this course
22nd May 23.59 pm AEST
Assessment information: Instructions
•
•
•
•
You must individually submit answers to all required tasks in Canvas under the
Assignment Tab for Assessment 2
Your Assignment will require you to undertake research and accurately
reference all sources used (RMIT Harvard)
Keep a copy of Assignment answers for your record
Word limit 1500 words
Resources:
1.
2.
3.
Acts of Parliament (Statutes, Legislation) and
Case Law (Judge made law, Common Law, Precedent)
Textbooks, media, websites of relevant legal organisations e.g., ACCC
Acts of Parliament and Case law can be found on Austlii
The Australasian Legal Information Institute, AustLII provides free internet access to
Australasian legal materials. AustLII’s broad public policy agenda is to improve
access to justice through better access to information. AustLII publishes public
legal information — that is, primary legal materials (legislation, treaties and
decisions of courts and tribunals); and secondary legal materials created by public
bodies for purposes of public access (law reform and royal commission reports for
example) and a substantial collection of law journals.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/
RMIT Classification: Trusted
AT 2 Tasks
Sem 1 2023
Question 1
15 Marks
Case Study
Sadly, Kristiyana’s father recently passed away. Her father had prepared a Will six
months earlier leaving Kristiyana $500,000 out of a 2-million-dollar Estate.
Kristiyana was devastated to learn that the rest of her father’s Estate had been left to
her brother. Kristiyana wished to challenge the validity of the Will wanting more
money and sought the advice of Mawar, a solicitor who worked for the “Nononcence
Legal Firm”.
Mawar led Kristiyana to believe that she had a strong case to challenge her father’s
Will allowing her to receive more funds from the Estate. Kristiyana accepted Mawar’s
advice and agreed to use Mawar’s legal services to begin proceedings to contest the
Will and claim an extra $500,000. As part of the services provided by Mawar,
Kristiyana attended many appointments which extended over several months.
Kristiyana regularly asked questions in her appointments to clarify the strength of her
claim against the Estate. Each time Mawar reassured Kristiyana that she was
entitled to a larger share of her father’s Estate confirming in written correspondence
she would likely be successful in obtaining an order from court in her favour but she
did not expect the matter to escalate beyond pre-litigation correspondence.
However, Mawar does not inform Kristiyana that she is entitled to obtain independent
advice from another solicitor to ensure she understood the terms of her agreement
with Nononcence and whether it would be in her interest to move forward with
services from the firm.
As the appointments with Mawar continued, Kristiyana had to take out a progressive
bank loan to pay for the legal costs associated with her claim, which she expected to
recoup with the increased value of her inheritance.
After a year without resolution to the case Kristiyana expressed her frustration with
Mawar about the delays and mounting legal costs related to the claim. Mawar
responds that she’s just too busy to continue working on Kristiyana’s claim and that
she now thinks the case against Kristiyana’s father’s Estate for more money is weak.
Mawar encourages Kristiyana to abandon the legal proceedings and accept the
original inheritance of $500,000. This would mean that $40,000 of Kristiyana’s
inheritance would have to be used to pay for unnecessary legal services.
Kristiyana became stressed and furious on hearing this news. Kristiyana accuses
Mawar of failing to give adequate information about the merits of her dispute over the
Will when she first sought her advice. Kristiyana tells Mawar that had she been
better advised during her initial appointments she would have accepted the Will
much earlier and avoided unnecessary legal costs.
Task:
Explain whether Kristiyana is able to seek compensation from Mawar through
the common law of Negligence. In your answer refer to the relevance of
vicarious liability and any defences Mawar may raise against the claim. Use
case references to support your arguments.
RMIT Classification: Trusted
AT 2 Tasks
Sem 1 2023
Question 2
15 Marks
Case Study:
In September 2022 Con, a retired financial planner who lived with his elderly father
Menoetius, contracted with “Undignified Energy Company Ltd” (Undignified
Energy) to install solar panels on the roof of his double storey home. The value of
the installation was $7,000. Undignified Energy also agreed to supply 10 new
terracotta roof tiles for the job at an extra cost of $110.
After extreme storm activity in October 2022, Con’s bedroom was flooded causing
extensive damage worth $10,000 to furniture and Con’s clothes. Con contacted local
plumber, Amanda who checked the roof and was able to provide a safe temporary fix
(silicone seal) after noticing that one of the new roof tiles was broken under a solar
panel which was installed by Undignified Energy. Amanda provided a report on the
tile damage to Con and advised that the solar panel would need to be removed and
roof tile replaced.
Con contacted Undignified Energy via email and submitted Amanda’s report to the
Company. Con asked Undignified Energy to replace the broken roof tile at their
expense and pay for the $10,000 damage in his room.
Two Undignified Energy employees attend Con’s property after which Undignified
Energy manager Christos emails Con the following message:
“Hello Con,
We have attended the above site and fixed the issue. There was a broken tile on the
roof which we have replaced.
Undignified Energy is not at fault for the broken tile or the subsequent damage
caused from the broken tile.
Undignified Energy completed this installation in September 2022. It’s impossible
that water damage has only started occurring a month later.
My personal opinion is that someone has gotten onto the roof and broken the tile in
October and now is blaming us.
As Undignified Energy wasn’t at fault, there will be a site visit charge of $200 and
tile replacement cost of $50.”
Christos Mistos,
Solar Supervisor
Undignified Energy
Con is shocked to receive this response as the property is an expansive double
storey house occupied by Con who receives a disability pension due to serious back
problems and his elderly father.
RMIT Classification: Trusted
AT 2 Tasks
Sem 1 2023
Task: Write a formal letter of complaint to Undignified Energy explaining how
the business has breached relevant guarantees of Australian Consumer
Law. Outline what action will be taken and with whom if your problem is not
remedied satisfactorily. Refer to a recent ACCC case study/investigation to
support your arguments.