Recent Question/Assignment

MLL 111
ASSIGNMENT 2016
CONTRACT LAW
DUE: 29 APRIL 2016
WORD LIMIT: 2,000 WORDS
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
Ben, Luke and Yoda are first year law students at Deakin University. They see each other in class, but generally do not socialise outside of class. One day, between classes, they noticed that an inflatable soccer pitch had been erected on campus and wasn’t being utilised. Yoda suggested they have a quick game. He announced that he was a ‘master’ at the game and that he would play two against one. To ‘make it interesting’, he announced that if either Ben or Luke managed to get past him and score a goal he would give them $500.
Ben and Luke consulted each other. Ben was still recovering from a knee injury so decided to sit it out and act as umpire; Luke replied, in good humour:
‘I’ll take pleasure in wiping that arrogant smirk of your face, but since I’ll be playing alone I want $500 per goal’.
Luke thought this would be easy money. He was very fit and had some experience playing soccer; conversely, despite his bluster, Yoda was very short and stocky and looked anything but athletic.
Yoda, although confident that Luke had no chance against him, was conscious of not wanting to risk too much money and replied:
‘OK. But the game is limited to 10 minutes and, in return, you have to promise to shout me a Skinny Latte for every goal I get past you. Ben can be timekeeper and umpire and let’s agree that his word is final’.
Despite thinking this was one of the most ridiculous bets he’d ever made, Luke decided that, as the risks were slim and the potential rewards great, he’d accept the challenge. He replied: ‘You’re on Yoda; prepare to be humiliated!’
Ben, observing out loud that he thought they were ‘both crazy’, set the timer and started the game. Luke was astonished at how skilled Yoda really was. Within the first half of play Yoda had scored two goals and Luke had not come close. In the second half Yoda managed a further two goals, but just before the ten minutes was up Luke, benefitting from a gust of wind causing the ball to bounce of the inflatable walls in an unnatural direction, took advantage of Yoda’s momentary disorientation to sneak a goal through his defences.
After finishing the game and cooling down, Luke approached Yoda and asked him to pay up. Yoda replied:
‘You can’t be serious. We were just having fun. In any case, that goal was pure luck – you can’t seriously expect me to pay you $500 for that?’
Ben interjected that in his experience there was ‘no such thing as luck’ and that Yoda ought to be a good sport and pay up.
Luke, deciding that Yoda might just need to have some time to regroup and come to grips with having given up a goal, replied that he’d give him a week to put together the money and, in the meantime, he’d buy him a skinny latte before the next four classes. Yoda nodded and they all headed off to their next class.
Over the next four days Yoda and Luke visited the university café together before each class, Luke purchasing a skinny latte for Yoda on each occasion. At the end of the week Luke asked Yoda to pay up the $500. Yoda replied that he was sorry but he didn’t have the money. He said that he never thought Luke would get a goal and certainly never intended to pay him $500 if he did; nor did he intend to hold Luke to his promise to buy the latte’s. Luke was unimpressed and told Yoda that this was not the end of the matter.
During that same week, on the assumption that he would be receiving $500 from Yoda, Luke went shopping online for a new computer. He found a good re-furbished model advertised by Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, a Melbourne based company specialising in second hand electronics.
The advertised price was $400, plus postage (or free pickup), but this was labelled as ‘negotiable’. The site contained a phone number and email address for its managing director, Han. Luke called the number hoping to negotiate the price. The call went through to message bank and Luke left a message indicating his interest in the computer and stating he would like to negotiate the price because he was a poor student. Luke then sent an email to the same effect to Han at the address listed on the website.
Unbeknownst to the Luke, Han was holidaying in Wellington, New Zealand. Han retrieved the phone message and then saw Luke’s email; he replied by email as follows:
‘Dear Luke
Thank you for your email. We don’t get many of those beauty’s through for refurbishing, so $400 is a good deal. Because you’re a student I’ll sell it to you for $350 plus standard postage (or free pickup) – but that’s as low as I can go! Let me know by Friday or the price will have to go back up to $400.
Cheers,
Han.’
Han sent this email from the computer in his hotel lobby in Wellington on Wednesday. Luke, who had set his phone up for constant email alerts, received the message almost immediately.
He recognised that $350 was a great deal for this model computer and immediately (on
Wednesday) replied by email as follows:
‘Han
Thanks mate – appreciate the offer. I’ll take it.
Luke’
Han had disconnected from the internet after sending the email and did not see Luke’s reply. He flew back to Melbourne on Wednesday evening and on Thursday morning received a call from Leia inquiring about the computer. She indicated she was happy to pay the advertised $400 if the computer was still available. Han told her that it was still available and agreed to sell it to her for $400.
Later that day Han checked his inbox and saw Luke’s email. He responded as follows:
‘Luke
Sorry mate, was in transit and just saw your email – unfortunately we had a buyer offering full price for the computer this morning and we’ve sold it to her. Happy to discuss other computers we have for sale that might suit your needs and budget, but unfortunately this one’s a no-go.
Cheers
Han’.
Luke is now very upset. He has approached the law firm you work for, ‘Calrissian Contract Lawyers’ for advice. He has explained everything that has happened, as set out above, and added that Yoda has continued to refuse to pay him $500 and that Han, when challenged about the sale, simply responded that its ‘not his fault’ that he didn’t get the email before he made the sale to another customer and that was just bad luck for Luke.
The Partner you work, Ms Lando, has asked you to prepare a ‘memo of advice’ for her setting out what, if any, rights Luke may have against either Yoda or Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, providing full reasons for your advice.
You may assume that all the facts provided are capable of being proven in court.
Note: you need not consider any issues beyond ‘formation’ of the contract. Thus, for example, if you conclude that there is a contract enforceable at law, you need not consider what possible remedies might be available to Luke. You may also assume all conduct that has occurred is lawful; consequently, you need not consider any special laws that might impact on ‘betting’ arrangements.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT
This assignment involves responding to a ‘legal problem’ (as opposed to producing a research essays). The question has been designed to allow you to answer it with minimum (if any) research beyond the unit materials. No specific marks are allocated for research.
Importantly, the assignment has been designed to assist you to develop the essential analytical and problem solving skills required of lawyers and, more immediately, that will be important for your law exams.
DUE DATE AND EXTENSION REQUESTS
1. This assignment is due by 11:59pm on 29 April 2016. Extension requests must be emailed to the unit chair, sam.cusumano@deakin.edu.au, prior to the due date and time. Extension requests are granted where there are unforeseen or exceptional circumstances impeding your ability to complete; they are not available as a result of foreseeable work or study commitments.
2. Please note that assignments submitted after the due date and without prior extension will not be marked. However, provided they are submitted within two weeks of the due date they may be taken into consideration in a pass/fail situation. Any assignments submitted more than two weeks after the due date, without prior extension, will receive a mark of zero.
Example: You submit an assignment late without an extension having been granted before the due date. Your assignment will not be marked and returned with the assignments submitted on time. However, should your final mark fall below a pass level of 50, your late assignment may be marked to enable you to achieve a pass grade. For example, if you receive a mark of 45/70 on the exam, your assignment will be marked and may enable you to achieve a pass grade of 50. In these circumstances your final mark will be capped at 50, even if you would have received a higher mark for the assignment had it been submitted on time.

SUBMISSION AND PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
3. All assignments are to be submitted online via CloudDeakin in the Dropbox, a link to which can be found on the research assignment page on CloudDeakin as well as in the Assessment dropdown menu. You are not required to use Turnitin to ‘check your draft’ but you are advised to do so to enable you to identify and correct any inadvertent plagiarism or collusion in your assignments prior to final submission. No hard copy assignments will be accepted. Should you have technical difficulties submitting via CloudDeakin please contact the IT service desk for assistance (details at http://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/administrative-divisions/esolutions/it-help). If your difficulties are not resolved in time to enable you to submit by the due date and time, email your assignment to the unit chair by the due date and time and include your IT reference number in the email.
4. It is possible to submit more than one document to the Dropbox; consequently, if you submit early and then decide you wish to replace your assignment with a modified version, you may do so. The last assignment submitted prior to the due date will be the one that is assessed.
5. There is no need to upload a cover sheet with your assignment. However, please note that the Dropbox folder includes a plagiarism and collusion declaration. Submission of your assignment indicates acceptance of this declaration.
6. The University regards plagiarism and collusion as an extremely serious academic offence. Information about the University’s rules in this regard can be found on the assignment page in CloudDeakin and also as part of the ‘Your rights and responsibilities as a student in this unit’ in the ‘Unit Information and Introduction’ section on CloudDeakin. You should also be aware that, if you are found to have engaged in academic misconduct (including plagiarism), you will be required to disclose this to the Board of Examiners when seeking admission to legal practice. Please avoid putting yourself in this position.
CONTRIBUTION TO FINAL MARK
7. This assignment is worth 30% and is compulsory. Failure to submit this assignment by the due date and time (without prior extension) will result in a score of zero (0) for this assignment (subject to the late marking policy referred to in paragraph 2, above). Your final grade for the unit comprises the sum of all the marks received for each of the assessment items.
WORD LIMIT
8. The word limit for this assignment is 2,000 words with a 10% tolerance. The word limit will be strictly enforced and words in excess of this limit (after taking into account a 10% tolerance) will not be marked. There are important reasons for imposing and enforcing word limits; they are something lawyers have to grapple with in practice. For example, arguments for special leave to the High Court must not exceed 10 pages (responses to those applications must not exceed 5 pages) and must adhere to formatting requirements. Oral arguments for special leave to appeal to the High Court must not exceed 20 minutes.
9. More importantly, there is an important skill associated with conveying your arguments with brevity. It is often harder to be brief than verbose when formulating an argument, but working to achieve the former will normally produce a better result; as with most things, quality is more important than quantity!
STYLE AND REFERENCING
10. The submission should be written in the style of a memorandum to your supervising partner, with sub-headings encouraged to provide structure. Footnotes are appropriate but a bibliography is not required. o citation footnotes (such as a case name and reference) are not included in the word limit; however, if it appears that you are using footnotes for part of your substantive argument or explanation, those footnotes will be counted.
o any preliminary heading (eg “Memo to Mr X”) will not be counted in the word limit; however, sub-headings used in the body of your essay will be counted in the word limit.
11. Although there are a number of different ways to approach memo’s, your memo should follow a logical structure and you should aim to keep your writing clear and succinct. Remember to carefully proof read your assignment before submitting it to ensure you correct any errors made in spelling, typing, grammar etc.
12. You are expected to adhere to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A link to the online version of the current edition (third) of the AGLC is available in the Assignment folder on CloudDeakin.
FORMAT
13. There are no specific format requirements (eg, font-style, font-size, spacing, margins). However, please present your work professionally using a standard font style and size. A sample memo has been provided as a guide to legal memo-writing.
14. Please avoid submitting assignments in Pages, Wordperfect, Works formats; if you use programs producing these formats, please save your assignment as an .rtf file before uploading to ensure the system is able to view the file. Please do not submit in PDF format. Feedback will be provided, in part, by way of mark-up of your submitted document; PDF’s make this more difficult.
RETURN OF ASSIGNMENTS
15. Your assignment will be marked, commented upon and returned to you via
CloudDeakin within 15 working days of the due date. In the event of any delay you will be advised immediately on CloudDeakin.
ASSIGNMENT DISCUSSION
16. Any further queries regarding this assignment should be posted in the ‘Assignment Discussion’ on Cloud Deakin.
MARKING RUBRIC
Please note that the marking rubric used to assess your work can be viewed on CloudDeakin and below. The descriptors it adopts are designed to assist you to understand why you achieved a particular mark for each aspect of the assignment. The original mark is out of 100 and will be reduced to a mark out of 30.

MLL111 CONTRACT LAW ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC 2016
Assignment: MLL111 Contract Assignments 2016
Performance Indicators
Performance
Levels
Mark
YET TO ACHIEVE
MINIMUM
STANDARD MEETS STANDARD EXCEEDS STANDARD
Fail (N)
0-49
Unsatisfactory
Pass (P)
50-59
Satisfactory
Credit (C) 60-69
Good
Distinction (D)
70-79
Very good
High Distinction (HD)
80-100
Exemplary
Introduction, conclusion and general structure of
memo
(20 marks) 0 • Disorganised, unstructured and difficult to follow
• Advice unclear
• Numerous grammatical, spelling and/or typographical errors
• Did not conform with assignment instructions • Some organisation but structure and clarity lacking at times
• Some grammatical, spelling and/or typographical errors
• Advice may be lacking clarity
• Generally conformed with assignment instructions • Generally organised and coherent
• Clear advice provided
• Grammar and spelling generally accurate, but with some errors
• Generally conformed with instructions • Well presented
• Logical structure
• Clear advice provided
• Grammar and spelling generally accurate
• Conformed with assignment instructions • Essay well presented with clear and concise expression
• Very clear advice
• Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation
• Well structured, providing clear analysis
• Conformed fully with instructions provided
Understanding and evaluation of legal issues arising from Luke’s dealings with Yoda (40 marks) 0 • Failure to identify some key issues
• Poor understanding of and evaluation of issues • Identified key issues but not all relevant issues
• Recited the law without sufficient application to facts
• Did not demonstrate full understanding of the issues • Identified key issues and most relevant issues
• Some application of legal principles to the facts
• Demonstrated good understanding of the issues • Identified most issues
• Generally applied the relevant legal principles to the facts and drew logical conclusions
• Demonstrated very good understanding of the issues • Identified all relevant issues
• Applied the relevant legal principles to the facts and drew clear and logical conclusions
• Demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the issues
MLL111 Contract Law 2016 | Assignment Rubric
Understanding and evaluation of legal issues arising from Luke’s dealings with Han/Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd
(40 marks) 0 • Failure to identify some key issues
• Poor understanding of and evaluation of issues • Identified key issues but not all relevant issues
• Recited the law without sufficient application to facts
• Did not demonstrate full understanding of the issues • Identified key issues and most relevant issues
• Some application of legal principles to the facts
• Demonstrated good understanding of the issues • Identified most issues
• Generally applied the relevant legal principles to the facts and drew logical conclusions
• Demonstrated very good understanding of the issues • Identified all relevant issues
• Applied the relevant legal principles to the facts and drew clear and logical conclusions
• Demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the issues
Overall
(out of 100)
0 Additional feedback
Overall
(out of 30) 0.00