Romeo v conservation commission of the northern territory

Business law – BBAL201

Term 3 2015

Business law

Group Assignment and Presentation

Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this assignment, students will be able to:

· Illustrate the principles relating to the law of torts; and

· Explain the principles relating to contract law.

Due date: Week 6.2

Create a group of 2 students.

2. Select a case below to find, read, understand and present.

3. The length of the written assignment is to be approximately 2000 Words. (Each member of the group must write 1000 words).

4. The presentation slides must be in the IRAC method. Maximum 8 slides, and three short points per slide.

5. Each member of the group is to present two parts of the IRAC method (I= issues and facts; Relevant laws and principles; A= Arguments of the parties and analysis, C= conclusion and court outcome).

6. The task is worth a total of 40% of your final marks.

Case Options (lecturer approval required)

1. Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)

2. ANZ v Westpac (1988)

3. Tabcorp Holdings v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009)

4. Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991)

5. Koompahtoo Local Aborginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007)

6. Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail authority of NSW (1982)

7. Zhu v Treasurer of the State of NSW (2004)

8. Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986)

9. Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)

10. Louth v Diprose (1992)

11. San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister Administering Environmental, Planning and Assessment Act (1986)

12. Walton Stores (Interstate) v Maher (1988)

13. Imbree v McNeilly (2008)

14. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)

15. Agar v Hyde (2000)

16. Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998)

17. Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)

18. Columbia Coffee & Tea Pty Ltd v Churchill (1992)

19. R Lowie Lippmann Figdor & Franck v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1992)

20. Nagel v Rottnest Island Authority (1993)

21. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)

22. Roads and Traffic Authority v Dederer (2007)

23. Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997)

24. Fallas v Mourlas (2006)

25. Rogers v Whitaker (1992)

26. Caltex Oil v Dredge (1976)

27. Perre v Apand (1999)

28. L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (1982)

29. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980)

30. Hawkins v Clayton (1988)

31. Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)

32. Horne v Queensland (1995)

33. Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)

34. Flavel v State of SA (2008)

35. Tame v NSW (2001)

36. Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2001)

37. Hackshaw v Shaw (1984)

38. Baker v Gilbert (2003)

39. Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)

40. Bryan v Maloney (1995)

Assessment Criteria

Group oral

presentation and visual slides

50%

Written Assignment:

Identify the facts of the case

10%

Written Assignment:

Explain the relevant law relating to the case

10%

Written Assignment:

Discuss the legal arguments raised by the parties in case

10%

Written Assignment:

Summarise the judgement of the case

10%

Written Assignment:

Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal.

10%

TOTAL

100%

TOTAL

/40%

Criteria

High Distinction

80% -

Distinction

70%- 79%

Credit

60-69%

Pass

50-59%

Fail

0-49%

Group oral

presentation and visual slides

At all times:

1. the group was cohesive and courteous;

2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;

3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case;

engaging;

4. the presentation slides were logical and structured; and

5. the oral presentations were interesting and engaging.

At all times:

1. the group was cohesive and courteous;

2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;

3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and

4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.

Most of the times:

1. the group was cohesive and courteous;

2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;

3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and

4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.

Some of the times:

1. the group was cohesive and courteous;

2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;

3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and

4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.

At no times:

1. the group was cohesive and courteous;

2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;

3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and

4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.

Written Assignment:

Identify the facts of the case

All of the facts are clearly and accurately detailed with reference to cases with similar facts.

All of the facts are clearly and accurately detailed.

All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately summarised.

Some of the facts are clearly and accurately outlined in brief.

The facts are not clearly or accurately outlined.

Written Assignment:

Explain the relevant law relating to the case

All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed, and the Act and related cases are referenced and discussed.

All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed.

Most of the relevant law is clearly and accurately summarised.

Some of the relevant law is clearly and accurately outlined in brief.

The relevant law is not clearly or accurately outlined.

Written Assignment:

Discuss the legal arguments raised by the parties in case

All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed, and there is a synthesis with the relevant law.

All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed.

Most of legal arguments are clearly and accurately summarised.

Some of the legal arguments are clearly and accurately outlined in brief.

The legal arguments are clearly or accurately outlined.

Written Assignment:

Summarise the judgement of the case

The decision of the judge is accurately detailed with reference to any dissenting judgements or precedents.

The decision of the judge is accurately detailed.

The decision of the judge is accurately summarised in summary format.

The decision of the judge is accurately outlined in brief.

The decision of the judge is inaccurate or incomplete.

Written Assignment:

Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal.

The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.

The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.

The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were very clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.

The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were fairly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.

The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were absent.

TOTAL

TOTAL