FINAL EXAMINATION HANDOUT
BUSINESS LAW 1100
TRIMESTER 2 2015

This instruction sheet contains the following:
?    Copy of answer sheet for Part B. This has been provided to assist students understand how to fill out their answer sheet;
?    Authorities you will be expected to know for the final examination;
?    The marking rubric and explanation of the allocation of marks for the four step process question (Part A);
o    In relation to Part A, students are required to apply relevant legal concepts and principles to analyse and solve the case study by applying their knowledge of the legal principles and rules arising in Topic 5.
o    In relation to Part B, students are required to apply their knowledge of the legal principles and rules arising and selecting the best answer in a multiple choice format from Topic 6 Performance and Breach; Topic 7 Remedies and Topic 9 Negligence.

o    In relation to Part C, students are required to apply their knowledge of the legal principles, cases and rules arising in Topic 10 Business Organisations.

Instructions summarised:

Final Exam 50%
•    This is a closed book examination.
•    No books, notes, or other materials are permitted in this exam.
•    Students must have their Curtin College student card to sit the exam.
•    You have 3 hours to complete the exam. You will also have 10 minutes reading time.
•    There are three parts to this exam:
o    Part A – one four step process question (worth 15 marks):
o    Part B – 21 Independent multiple choice questions and applied case studies 19 questions. [40 multiple choice questions in total (worth 20 marks)]; and
o    Part C – 3 short answer questions (worth 15 marks).
•    You must answer all three parts.
•    Part A of the exam requires students to resolve the question using the four step process.
•    Part B of the exam requires students to solve the Part B case study by applying their knowledge of the legal principles and rules arising and selecting the best answer in a multiple choice format. There are a series of 40 questions [some independent and some drawn from case study (half a mark per question)].
•    Part C of the exam requires students to provide answers to three short answer questions (5 marks each). Students must answer all three short answer questions.
•    Students must fill out their details on both the cover page of the examination question paper and on the Part B answer sheet as shown above.

PLACE THE EXAMINATION QUESTION PAPER INSIDE YOUR ANSWER BOOKLET.

YOUR PAPER WILL NOT BE MARKED IF THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT RETURNED.

Required authorities for final examination
Trimester 2, 2015
Students ARE required to know all of the rules of law for each topic as directed in the programme calendar at the back of the unit outline and seminar materials. Students are advised to refer to what was covered in the Revision lecture for further detail on how to focus their study.
This document is intended to provide guidance in relation to the authorities (cases and legislative provisions) students are expected to be able to cite as authority for particular rules of law (i.e. to indicate where the rule applied comes from or what is its source).

Required cases for final examination
You are not required to provide full citations of cases in the examination. Case names are sufficient.  Further, you will not be penalised for not remembering case names in a test or exam. It is sufficient that you identify the case you are referring to by an obvious abbreviation (e.g. “the pregnant cow case”) or summary of the facts.
However, sometimes this takes more time in the exam than writing out a case name would and on occasion, a student’s description of the facts of a case can be so confused that the marker is unable to tell which case the student is referring to. It is recommended that students attempt to remember case names.
You will need to briefly describe the facts of the case (maybe more detail is required if the case you are referring to is very similar to your question), the outcome and MOST importantly the principle or rule to come out of the case (the “ratio”).

Topic 5 – Contents of a contract

Cases required for the final examination
Van den Esschert v Chappell [1960] WAR 114
LG Thorne & Co v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (1955) 56 SR (NSW) 81
Handbury v Nolan (1977) 13 ALR 339
Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Moorhead v Brennan [1991] 20 IPR 161
L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
Causer v Browne [1952] VLR 1

Topic 6 – Performance and breach of contract

Cases required for the final examination
Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers [1935] AC 524
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Associated Newspapers v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
Steele v Tardiani (1946) 72 CLR 386
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409
Hochester v De la Tour (1853) 1 CLR 846; 118 ER 922
Mahoney v Lindsey (1980) 33 ALR 601

Topic 7 – Remedies for breach of contract

Cases required for the final examination
McDonald v Denny Lascelles (1933) 48 CLR 457
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellsschaft mbH [1976] QB 44
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409
Radford v de Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8
Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd [1969] 1 AC 350; [1967] 3 All ER 686
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517; 9 Exch 341
McRae v Cth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344
Burns v Man Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
Simonius Vischer & Co v Holt & Thompson [1979] 2 NSWLR 322
Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687
JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Another (1931) 45 CLR 282
Dougan v Ley & Another (1946) 71 CLR 142
Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd [1988] VR 39
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337

Topic 9 – Liability in tort law

Cases required for the final examination
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 16

Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225

Topic 10 – Business Organisations

Cases required for the final examination
Kahn v Miah [2000] 1 WLR 2123.

Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1895] 2 Ch 232; [1897] AC 22.
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (No 3) 2002 168 FLR 253;
Eley v The Positive Government Security Life Assurance Company Ltd (1876) ExD 20.

The Marking Rubric for Part A – the four step process
MARKING RUBRIC
STEP ONE    No marks specifically allocated
STEP TWO    7 marks
STEP THREE    6 marks
STEP FOUR    No marks specifically allocated
OVERALL USE OF THE FOUR STEP PROCESS AND STRUCTURE OF ANSWER    2 marks available

In relation to the marks allocated for the overall use of the 4 step process and structure of the answer, regard will be had to not just whether the answer is “set out” in the 4 steps. Consideration will be given to the clarity of the explanation of the law with regard to applicable authority where relevant. Students will be rewarded here for a detailed application of the facts to the law explained.  For example, a very good use of the 4 step process would be the application of the facts to every principle of law explained.
Consideration will also be given to the logical presentation, coherency and consistency of the explanation of the law, application of facts and subsequent conclusion.
As a general guide, a student who has used the 4 step process correctly for the question (Has identified the legal issue, explained the rules relevant to that issue with reference to authority (cases and/ or legislation), applied the facts and come to a logical conclusion), but the explanation of the law or application of the facts is not as detailed as it could be, or the conclusion is not a logical progression of what has gone before would be awarded a pass mark for this part of the test (1 mark).
Part A of the final examination (15 marks) requires you to use the four step process which is discussed below. Be aware that whilst this is the preferred method for answering legal problems, the technique has application in other disciplines. Following, you will find an outline of the four-step approach to resolving case studies.

Resolving legal case studies – Four Step Process
Sometimes it is useful to use headings at the beginning of each step.
Step 1

Identify the legal issue
Usually this is easily worked out from the question itself. The legal issue will always be concerned with a topic that has been discussed in the unit.
Only a sentence is required for this step. For example, ‘The legal issue is whether both parties have demonstrated a clear intention to be legally bound in the formation of a valid contract’.
Step 2

Explain the rule(s) of law.
Explain the rules of law relevant to that issue with reference to authority (cases and/or legislation). This is your best opportunity to obtain marks by showing that you know the legal rules applicable to the legal issue. (The extent to which you will be required to provide detail in an assignment is different to an examination and will of course depend upon the marks allocated to that problem and the time you have available).
Important cases should be identified and a brief summary of the facts, the decision of the court, and a statement of the important principle of law that the case makes should be provided. Sometimes it is a section of an Act that you are relying on as authority for the principle of law that you have identified and explained. Similarly you need to refer to the relevant section of the legislation and either quote the exact wording or perhaps a summary is sufficient.
In step two you should explain the principles of law as if to someone who knows nothing about the unit. In that way you will make sure that you explain at the level and in the detail that is required.
Remember that if you are writing an examination/test you do not have to quote the citation of a case. You do not even need to remember the names of the parties. It is quite acceptable to say something ‘in the smoke ball case’. It is the facts, the decision and the principle (ratio) of the case that are important.
DON’T mention any of the FACTS of the case study/problem question at this stage. Step 2 is the place to logically explain all the law relevant to the problem.
Step 3

Apply the law to the facts of the question in a detailed and logical manner, to EVERY rule of law explained in step two. Consider each aspect or element of legal criteria discussed in Step 2 and decide whether it is satisfied in the scenario that you are considering.
For example, you would say something like ‘Fred made Mary an offer of … because…’ It is always necessary to explain which of the facts of the question indicate that the element of the action has been satisfied.
Remember if you have taken the time to explain the rule of law then you should apply the facts specifically to that rule.
Step 4

Draw possible conclusions. Please note that many problems do not have a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer until the matter has been decided by a court of law. It is best to state your conclusions in language that reflects this reality. Use statements like ‘it is likely…’ here.
Your conclusion can usually be put in one or two sentences. A long discussion is not necessary. Your conclusion is just a summary of what you have considered in Step 3.

Curtin College Business Law 1100
Final Examination Trimester 2 2015
PART A

Attached is a copy of the facts of the case study for PART A of the examination.

One four step process question will be asked based on the facts of this case study. You must construct a coherent and logical legal argument using the four step process. Part A is worth 15 marks. The marking rubric for the question is below.

The Part A question is based on Topic 5, Contents of a contract. Therefore students are not required to consider other issues that might arise in law in other areas, but to confine their answers to what was raised in Topic 5, as directed in the course materials.

You will not receive the specific question until the examination. The examination paper, which you will sit at the centrally scheduled examination, will contain the facts of the case study attached and the question.

Examination information is available Moodle. Note: It is your responsibility to check the final date, time and location (s) for the examination.

Now that you are in receipt of the facts of the case study for Part A we suggest you:

1.    Study the facts and identify the legal issues (the issues of law which need to be discussed). Like we do in the Planning Slides in the case studies in the seminar.
2.    Work out how you are going to best explain the rules of law relevant to the legal issues you have identified with reference to authority.
3.    Apply the rules of law to the facts in the case study and try to reach a conclusion.
4.    You lecturer can assist you with your understanding of the particular rules of law but WILL NOT be able to answer specific questions on the facts of the case study for Part A of the examination (i.e. tell you if you are right or wrong) or mark or review draft answers. However, they will be able to discuss the writing technique and four step process in general.

Good luck with the final exam!

Anna

MARKING RUBRIC
STEP ONE    No marks specifically allocated
STEP TWO    7 marks
STEP THREE    6 marks
STEP FOUR    No marks specifically allocated
OVERALL USE OF THE FOUR STEP PROCESS AND STRUCTURE OF ANSWER    2 marks available

PART A: Four step process question (15 marks)
Mia is a tennis champion and is going to represent Australia in the forthcoming European Tennis Championship in France. Before leaving Australia for France Mia decides to have her tennis racquets restrung. Mia sees an internet advertisement by Sebastian’s Restringing, stating that they are the ‘best in New South Wales and no-one can restring racquets like them’ the advertisement also stated that ‘they only use first grade materials when restringing racquets for champions’.
Seeing this advertisement Mia decides to take her racquets to Sebastian’s Restringing. She enters Sebastian’s shop, she does not notice a sign which is placed on the wall behind the counter which says, in small sized print:
‘Whilst all possible care is taken with stringing and restringing work entrusted to us we cannot accept responsibility for any defective work or defective products used by us, and we will not be liable for any loss or losses to customers, even if demonstrably caused by negligent workmanship by any of its employees.’
Even if Mia had seen the notice she would not have been able to read it as she normally wears contact lenses and she was not wearing them that day.
Mia asks for Sebastian and she explains that she has seen his internet advertisement and she would like him to restring her racquets for tennis as she is going to the European Championship in France and she could win the championship, therefore it is extremely important that he restrings her racquets with the correct tension and materials. Sebastian assures her that the racquets would be restrung correctly with the highest grade of materials. Mia then asks ‘what is the cost for restringing 6 racquets’ and Sebastian says ‘the 6 racquets would cost $180’. Mia agrees and leaves her racquets for restringing and was given a docket which she placed in her purse, assuming that it identified her racquets so that she could collect the right racquets on her return. The same words which appeared on the notice behind the counter were also printed on the docket in very fine, but legible, print on the bottom of the docket.
A few days later, Mia collected her racquets which appeared to be correctly strung. Paid the costs of restringing, packed the racquets with her other gear and left for the European Championship in France.
Whilst competing in the first round of competition, the strings in Mia’s racquet broke. She then selected five replacement racquets in turn they also broke. She was eliminated from the first round of the European Championship and she was devastated as Mia was guaranteed $35,000 of endorsements if she reached the finals. Mia’s poor performance could be directly attributed to her faulty racquets, which had been strung with defective materials. Subsequent testing of the strings showed that they were suitable for squash racquets, but not for tennis racquets and they should never have been used by the person stringing the racquets for Mia.
It was later discovered that one of Sebastian’s employees allowed his son (who is not an employee of Sebastian’s Restringing) to restring the racquets and he used the wrong strings.
.
Assuming there is an enforceable contract, using the four step process …