Suzannah has recently opened a martial arts school in a commercial space not far from her home. She had considered taking a tenancy in the local shopping centre as it provided excellent exposure for her business; however, the commercial property provided more space and flexibility for the fit-out options for her school. Suzannah engaged a flooring company to come in and lay carpet and affix foam matting to the floors for the training area. A mirror contractor was hired to come and install mirrors on the walls to enhance students' training. The flooring contractor said they would charge $4,000 for the fit-out, and that included Suzannah selecting the colour and width of the foam mats supplied. Suzannah agreed to this and signed off on the flooring company's quotation. The mirror contractor said they would source and supply the mirrors Suzannah requested and install these. Suzannah opted for mirrors that have a protective coating that reduces 'fogging' and also reduces the chance of breaking from impact. The cost was $12,000 and an indicative time frame of by 2 September was agreed. Suzannah signed off on the quotation which noted no substitutions would be made for the specific mirrors selected by Suzannah, and that installation timeframes may vary due to stock availability where customers have nominated a particular mirror style or type. The fit out for both contractors was due to be completed by 2 September, with a grand opening of the centre taking place on 9 September. The flooring contractor completed their work a month early, as such, Suzannah started operating classes and generating income from her school from 10 August. The mirror contractor was not able to fulfil the contract on time as a fire had destroyed their warehouse (including their stock) and no other suppliers could provide the specific mirror type Suzannah had requested. As such, the grand opening went ahead without the mirrors in place. The head of the martial art style Suzannah's school is a part of visited on the grand opening day. As a gesture of goodwill, a personal statue from his collection of a samurai was placed on the front desk of the school. He remarked that it was so something of his was present in the school at all times to bring good fortune to the school. About two months later the mirrors were installed in the school with minimal interruption to the classes already scheduled for the school. (a) (b) Identify and explain the six (6) elements of a contract Suzannah had with the flooring company. (6 marks) Outline two (2) differences a lease to rent space in the shopping centre may have to the one Suzannah has in place. (3 marks) (c) Suzannah is disappointed the mirrors were not installed for the grand opening, and she has decided to sue the mirror contractor for breach of contract. Discuss the likelihood of Suzannah successfully suing for breach of contract, providing justification for your answer. (7 marks) (d) A few months after the grand opening, the head of the style passed away. Suzannah has assumed she will retain the statue he left in the school and it will become her property now. Outline what kind property the statue would be considered and explain Suzannah's relationship to the statue in terms relative to this type of property. (3 marks) Criteria-Based Marking Guide for Question 3(a)-(d) Excellent (Mark range: 13-19 marks) six (6) elements of a contract identified and explained with examples from the case study correctly identified two (2) differences between leases available in the case study comprehensive and justified discussion supporting the chosen outcome of the law suit, referring to case study facts and considerations clear discussion of appropriate considerations in relation to the ownership of the property based on case study facts Satisfactory (Mark range: 6-12 marks) between three (3) and five (5) elements of a contract identified, with some examples supported with case study evidence Unsatisfactory (Mark range: 0-5 marks) two (2) or less elements of a contract identified, with little or no examples supported with case study evidence between the leases available and little or no reference to the case study correctly identified at least one (1) incorrectly highlights differences difference in leases, may not include reference to case study mostly clear discussion and justification of some case study relevant facts in support of the outcome the lawsuit some discussion of appropriate considerations for ownership without reference to case study facts partial discussion of some relevant case study details supporting the outcome of the lawsuit inadequate consideration of case study facts and generic property ownership discussed