Student Number: (enter on the line below)

KGL3024

Student Name: (enter on the line below)

KOMAL PREET KAUR

HI6027 Business and Corporate Law

Online Supplementary Assessment

Trimester 1, 2020

Instructions:

The assessment consists of five (5) questions divided into three (3) Sections.

Answer all questions in the answer boxes provided in this paper.

Section A 1 Short Answer question (10 marks)

Section B 3 Case Studies / Problem-type questions (30 marks)

Section C 1 Critical Thinking question (10 marks)

Assessment Weight:

This assessment accounts for 50 total marks.

Question 1 10 marks

Question 2 10 marks

Question 3 10 marks

Question 4 10 marks

Question 5 10 marks

Total marks 50 marks

Part A Short Answer Question (10 marks)

Question 1

List the characteristics of what would be considered to be a good legal system. Give an example of an actual law which you would consider fulfils the requirements of good law.

ANSWER: ** Answer box will enlarge as you type

The characteristics in a good legal system are as follows:

1. A good legal system must be simple and crisp

2. The legal system must be written in simple languages so as to have appeal even to a layman

3. A good legal system has all laws and rules in written format

4. A good legal system must be comprehensive and detailed

5. It must have the considerations for all dimensions of society

6. A good legal system must be flexible to accommodate the needs of a changing society

7. It must be easily accessible and retrievable

8. All the rules and regulations must be easy to understand

9. The legal system must be inexpensive and affordable

10. The legal system must treat everyone fairly, without any kind of bias

In my views, the First Amendment of the US Constitution is a good law. The First Amendment was passed with the prime objective of protecting the freedom of speech, freedom of the press as well as the freedom of practising religion. The Law is pretty simple and understandable by all. Also, there is no bias of any kind in this law. Hence, I feel that it qualifies to be called a good law.

Part B Case Studies / Problem-type questions (30 marks)

Instructions: Your answers must be supported by legal reasoning and case law or legislation in order to gain a passing grade.

Question 2 (10 marks)

Belinda wants to buy a second-hand car and visits a number of car dealers before deciding to purchase an as new 1998 Ford Mustang from American Car Sales. The sales person, Jaxson, tells Belinda that the car was manufactured in 1998 and had only done 54,000 kms.

Three months later, Belinda has the Mustang serviced with her local mechanic who was a Mustang enthusiast. He comments on the fact that the car was in pretty good condition for a 1994 Mustang, though he was surprised that it had only done 54,000 kms. He would not have been surprised if it had done 100,000 kms.

Belinda makes further inquiries and discovers that the Mustang was in fact made in 1994 and she has paid about $5,000 more than the actual market value of the car. Belinda intends to approach American Car Sales about this issue.

Does Belinda have any contractual rights against American Car Sales?

Required:

You are expected to discuss legal rules learned regarding terms of a contract, in particular statements and representations, and conditions and warranties.

Do notanswer this question based on Australian Consumer Law principles. No credit will be given if you do so.

ANSWER:

Question 3 (10 marks)

A news story from 2017 reported that Sydney woman was hospitalised after glass found in takeaway coffee.

According to the report, the woman, 39 year-old Natalie Grabowski, was hospitalised with internal bleeding after swallowing glass she believes was in the ice served with her takeaway iced coffee at a popular inner-west cafe.

She had bought the cold brew coffee from BrewCity Redfern on Redferns OConnell St one Sunday morning earlier this month. On taking her first gulp of the iced coffee, Natalie felt something scratch her throat. According to her, it felt hard and sharp, and just not right. She then spat out the small pieces of ice she had not yet swallowed, and rolled them in her fingers trying to figure out what was wrong. One of the pieces wasnt melting and cut her finger. She then realised it was actually a small piece of sharp glass.

Later that morning, she felt suddenly sick. Things didnt look right when she went to the toilet. Colleagues called an ambulance which transported Natalie to the nearest surgical hospital.

After two days of humiliating tests and procedures, much of that time spent in discomfort and pain, Natalie was discharged without having to go under the knife.

Medical reports said she had suffered rectal bleeding after ingesting the piece of glass. The distressed coffee lover said while her injuries seem to have passed, she feels like the incident will affect her forever.

Required:

a) What elements must Natalie prove to be able to succeed in an action in negligence against the coffee shop? Identify and briefly explain each element. (3 mark)

ANSWER:

The elements must Natalie prove to be able to succeed in an action in negligence against the coffee shop was:

1. Malfeasance: Malfeasance is the performance of an act which is unlawful, legally unjustified, and harmful. Malfeasance is illegal act and come under the law of tort.

For example, employing a relative at higher pay in government office is an illegal act and come under the category of malfeasance.

2. Misfeasance: Misfeasance is the improper act performed by an individual or entity, where the duty of the individual was to provide proper care

b) Apply each element to the facts of this case and determine whether Natalie will be successful in her negligence claim. (7 marks)

ANSWER:

*** Do notanswer these questions based on any principles of Australian Consumer Law. No credit will be given if you do so.

Question 4 (10 marks)

Carlos went to a fish shop and asked for 1 kilo of two fresh prawns for dinner. The fish shop owner explained that he had no fresh prawns but that he had some boiled ones, which he sold to Carlos. It turned out that the prawns werent fresh and Carlos, after eating them, became seriously ill.

Required:

a) Does Carlos have any action open to him against the fish shop under the Australian Consumer Law? You must specify which sections of the ACL apply to this case. (2 marks)

ANSWER:

b) What does Carlos need to prove to succeed in claiming against the fish shop based on Australian Consumer Law? (8 marks)