MLC707 Business Law Assignment Sample
Description
This assessment provides you with an opportunity to formalise a written answer to legal problems (hypothetical fact scenarios - HFS), with an expectation of legal research. This assessment is the first step in acquiring the skill of legal argumentation, which is set as a discipline-specific skill with which to enhance your critical faculties and writing abilities, as well as provide a deeper understanding of the workings of business law. It is important that your discussion focuses on analysing the facts and applying the law to those facts. Marks will be awarded for your identification of the issues and the material facts that are relevant to those issues; your identification of the law that applies to those facts and issues; and most importantly, the application and analysis of the law as it applies to those facts and issues. Generalised statements of legal principles – that is, those that are not sufficiently relevant to the facts – will attract only limited marks. It is also expected that you observe tertiary level academic writing standards – structure your answers properly under appropriate headings and present it as proper paragraphs, with correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.
Please ensure that you read all of the instructions contained in this document
Specific Requirements
1. Research: This is a research assignment (beyond the textbook), so you are strongly advised to complete the Legal Research for Commerce Units Module before commencing work on the assignment. This module can be found on the CloudDeakin unit site under ‘Content’ / ‘Table of Contents’ / ‘Legal research for Commerce Units Module’.
Note! Only relying on your prescribed textbook is not acceptable and will result in poor marks. You must identify additional research sources through the Deakin Library. Assignments that received poor marks typically included the following common mistakes:
- lack of any suitable resources, such as other textbooks, to explain general legal principles:
- over-reliance on web-based materials that lacked detail and context, and reliability (such as blog-sites):
- use of incorrect web-based materials (such as American sources); and
- only reference to a few cases.
Please refer to the two Higher Distinction Papers uploaded on Cloud Deakin to see what the expectations are for a top-quality answer.
2. Individual Assignment: It is an individual assignment, meaning that each student must submit his/her own answers. You can, of course, form discussion or study groups and discuss the assignment, but you need to undertake your own research and write your own answers. You should familiarise yourself properly about all the rules applying to plagiarism and collusion.
3. Default Jurisdiction to be Assumed: Victoria An assignment, exam or seminar question may describe a fact scenario set in another state of Australia. If so, and if state legislation is applicable, the relevant rules of that particular state should be discussed.
However, if an interstate location is not indicated (and this will usually be the case), then students are directed to assume that the fact scenarios take place in the state of Victoria. This means that if state legislation is applicable to the fact scenario, only Victorian legislation should be discussed.
Cases from other jurisdictions within Australia can always be discussed if they have persuasive precedent applicability.
Of course, Commonwealth Legislation (and associated cases) applies equally across Australia. When an area of law is regulated by way of Commonwealth Legislation only, for instance the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), there is no need to consider any state legislation.
4. Research and referencing: There is no minimum or maximum number of resources that you must include. You must use an adequate number of relevant legal resources to explain the legal principles and support your application of the legal principles to the facts. You must correctly reference all resources following the Australian
Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC)
https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3181325/AGLC4-with- Bookmarks-1.pdf.
As this is a law unit, the AGLC is the most appropriate way of referencing research assignments in law and you will not be allowed to use the Deakin Harvard
Referencing Guide (Harvard) for purposes of this assignment. Note two things in particular:
- Footnotes are used (the words in the footnotes are counted as part of the total words required for this assignment, ie between 1,800 and 2,000 words); and
- A Bibliography (see paragraph 1.13, page 35 of the AGLC) is required (the words in the Bibliography are not counted as part of the total words required for this assignment).
Use at least three, divisions for your Bibliography: A. Articles/Books/Reports (arranged alphabetically and together); B. Cases (alphabetically without any distinction between court cased of different countries); and C. Legislation (alphabetically, but no need for distinctions between Federal and State Legislation or legislation of different countries).
Any other sources could be listed alphabetically under “D. Other”.
5. Word count: The word length for your assignment may be anywhere between 1, 800 and 2,000 words (including headings and footnotes, but not the Bibliography). Assignments must not exceed the upper limit of 2,000 words (headings, body and footnotes).
Submissions exceeding 2,000 words will be penalised by 2% (2 marks out of 40 marks (exam counts for 60 marks) for every 20 words over 2,000 words.
6. Format
• You do not need to provide a cover sheet.
• Text, headings and Bibliography: Use font size 12 point and line spacing of 1.5 (one and a half).
• For footnotes: Use font size 10 point and line spacing of 1 (single).
• Use Calibri or Times New Roman font.
• Use margin 2.54 cm on all sides.
• You must provide a total word count (inclusive of headings, body text and footnote) at the beginning of your assignment.
• All pages of the assignment must be numbered.
• Your Name and Student ID must appear on the title page;
• Only your student ID number may be included in the header or footer of each page.
• You must ensure that your writing, punctuation, spelling and grammar are of a satisfactory standard.
Solution
Answer 1
To: The Board of Coffee D’Oro Pty Ltd
Subject: Advice on Potential Nuisance Claim by Rowan McGiver
Dear Board Members,
I have been asked to advise on whether Mr. Rowan McGiver's nuisance claim against Coffee D'Oro Pty Ltd (hereinafter "the Company") will be successful. In light of relevant statutory provisions and court cases, this memorandum will outline the legal principles of nuisance and analyze the particular facts of this case.
The tort of nuisance safeguards individuals' rights to the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property . University Assignment Help, It can be categorized as a private or public nuisance. Public disturbance includes a demonstration or oversight that nonsensically obstructs the freedoms of the overall population, while private aggravation includes outlandish impedance with a singular's utilization and pleasure in their property . Since the alleged interference is specifically related to Mr. McGiver's property, Mr. McGiver's claim is likely to be framed as a private nuisance in this instance.
For establishing the claim as a private nuisance the plaintiff should prove the following:
1. The activity of the defendant lead to an interference with the plaintiff utilization and enjoyment of the land
2. The interference was unreasonable in nature
3. The defendant led to direct result of the interference.
In view of current realities, apparently the activity of the breeze turbines at the Organization's processing plant causes an obstruction with Mr. McGiver's utilization and pleasure in his property. Mr. McGiver has reported difficulty sleeping as a result of the wind turbines operating at about 15% above the Melbourne City Council's noise limits, affecting his project to breed rare birds. The central point of contention for this situation is whether the obstruction is significant and nonsensical. When deciding whether or not an interference is unreasonable, courts take into account the locality, severity, duration, and frequency of the interference, utility of the defendant's behavior, and the defendant's intent or negligence . The Company's factory is in a quiet part of inner Melbourne, which is to be expected given the location. However, the wind turbines exceed the Melbourne City Council's noise limits, indicating that the noise in this particular area may be considered excessive.
In surveying the seriousness of the impedance, the court will think about the effect on Mr. McGiver's life. He can't sleep because of the noise, which also gets in the way of his project to breed rare birds. The Eastern Ground Parrot is a species that is in danger, and Mr. McGiver's project helps save it. Given that the noise levels are higher than what is allowed by the council, the court may find the interference with Mr. McGiver's sleep and conservation project to be substantial and unreasonable. Relevant factors include the interference's duration and frequency. The breeze turbines work all day, every day, meaning the commotion is steady, which might make an appearance favor of finding the impedance outlandish. An important factor to take into account is how useful the company's actions are. The business has taken steps to lessen its impact on the environment and cut down on its carbon footprint. The public benefit derived from the Company's eco-friendly initiatives may be taken into consideration by the court . The court, on the other hand, will weigh this against the effect on Mr. McGiver.
In deciding the respondent's goal or carelessness, the court will look at whether the Organization might thely affect Mr. McGiver and done whatever it takes to alleviate the clamor. It could be argued that Greenelectrics Greenengineering Pty Ltd., a specialist in carbon-neutral energy solutions, designed and installed the wind turbines, and that the company took reasonable measures to ensure that the system complied with the noise limits. However, the Company or its contractor may have been negligent if the wind turbines operate above the noise limits.Relevant cases and statutory provisions include:
1. Munro v Southern Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332: In this case, the plaintiff won a nuisance claim against a dairy factory for making too much noise and vibration from the defendant's business. The court found the interference to be substantial and unreasonable after considering its nature and extent .
2. Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683: Despite the defendant's compliance with statutory requirements, the court determined that the operations that caused noise, smell, and vibration were a nuisance . The case features that legal consistence doesn't give a flat out safeguard against disturbance claims.
3. Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) ("the EPA"): The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is authorized by Section 48A of the EPA to issue noise control notices to stop or reduce noise emissions from premises. If the company exceeds the Melbourne City Council's noise limits , the EPA may take enforcement action against it.
In conclusion, the substantial and possibly unreasonable noise interference suggests that Mr. McGiver's claim for nuisance may be successful. The fact that the wind turbines produce noise levels that are higher than the Melbourne City Council's set limits, as well as the impact on Mr. McGiver's ability to sleep and his project to breed rare birds, support the conclusion that the interference is unreasonable. However, the court's assessment of the claim may be influenced by the Company's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and contribute to environmental sustainability, as well as the potential defenses related to the measures taken to ensure compliance with noise limits.
The Company should think about having a conversation with Mr. McGiver about possible ways to reduce noise levels, like installing noise barriers or changing the hours of operation of the wind turbines, to reduce the likelihood of a successful claim. In addition, Greenelectrics Greenengineering Pty Ltd ought to be consulted by the business in order to ascertain any potential technical enhancements that can be made to the wind turbines in order to lessen the noise levels and guarantee compliance with the noise limits established by the Melbourne City Council.
Yours faithfully,
Answer 2
To: GG Pty Ltd
Subject: Advice on Vicarious Liability for Manfred Visconti’s Negligence
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been tasked to ascertain whether GG Pty Ltd (hereinafter "the Company") would be vicariously liable for Manfred Visconti's alleged carelessness in the engineering design of the wind turbines at the Coffee D'Oro Pty Ltd factory.
It is assumed that Manfred Visconti was careless in his design and that he did not get final approval from Greta Thudal, the chief engineer, before putting the design into action. Furthermore, it is expected that Ms. Ileni Lemni, the harmed bistro director, has initiated lawful activity against GG Pty Ltd for carelessness. The legal principle that holds an employer liable for the wrongdoings committed by its employees while they were employed is known as "vicarious liability." To lay out vicarious risk, the offended party should demonstrate that:
1. The wrongdoer was an employee of the defendant;
2. The wrongful act was committed in the course of employment; and
3. The wrongful act was sufficiently connected to the employment to justify holding the employer liable .
For this situation, Manfred Visconti was a representative of the Organization, and that he was participated in the plan of the breeze turbines over his work. The issue at hand is whether or not his carelessness with the design was entwined with his job in such a way as to warrant holding the company vicariously liable. The concept of "field of activities" is the most important factor in determining whether the illegal act was sufficiently related to employment. The courts look at whether the wrongdoing occurred in the course of the employee's authorized activities or an employer-assigned field of activities. The courts likewise consider whether the illegitimate demonstration was a gamble intrinsic in the field of exercises doled out to the representative.
In this instance, Manfred Visconti was given the task of designing the wind turbines for Coffee D'Oro Pty Ltd., which fell under the scope of work that the company had given him to do. Since Manfred was a qualified solar energy electrical engineer who was in charge of designing and putting green energy systems into place, the design of the wind turbines posed a risk as well. The fact that Greta Thudal, the chief engineer, did not give Manfred final approval does not excuse the Company from vicarious liability. Courts have ruled that, as long as the wrongdoing is sufficiently related to the employment, the employer is vicariously liable for its employees' wrongdoings, even if they go beyond their authority.
Relevant cases and statutory provisions include:
1. Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21: The High Court expected that a franchisor was vicariously to take responsibility for the activities of its franchisee's representative, who harmed a client, as the worker was acting throughout their work and the injury was a gamble inborn in the business .
2. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ("the WCRA"): Area 32 of the WCRA gives that a business is at risk for wounds emerging out of or throughout work, paying little heed to blame. This section covers both mental and physical injuries .
3. Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161: As the employee was acting in the course of their employment and the employer had authorized and encouraged the employee's behavior, the High Court ruled that an employer was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, who punched a hotel patron.
4. Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534: A two-part test for determining vicarious liability was established by the Canadian Supreme Court. The first question is whether the employer gave the employee permission to act in a certain way or gave the employee authority to carry out the task that led to the wrongdoing. The subsequent part is whether the unjust demonstration was adequately associated with the work to legitimize expecting the business to take responsibility .
In conclusion, on the basis of the assumptions made, it is likely that the company would be held vicariously liable for Manfred Visconti's carelessness in the design of the wind turbines at the Coffee D'Oro Pty Ltd. factory. The way that Manfred was acting over his work and the plan of the breeze turbines was inside his field of exercises relegated by the Organization recommends that the illegitimate demonstration was adequately associated with the work to legitimize expecting the Organization to take responsibility. It is essential to keep in mind that the assumptions made in this advice are speculative, and a comprehensive investigation of the facts would be required to definitively determine the Company's liability.
The Company cannot rely solely on the argument that Manfred Visconti was responsible for the design flaw and that Ms. Lemni should sue him for negligence in response to her claim. Even if Manfred was solely to blame for the design flaw, the company could still be held vicariously liable for his carelessness as long as the wrongdoing occurred while he was working and was sufficiently related to his job.The fact that Manfred left for Majorca does not excuse the company from responsibility for his carelessness. In the event that the Organization were seen as vicariously at risk for Manfred's carelessness, it would stay answerable for any remuneration owed to Ms. Lemni, regardless of whether Manfred were at this point not accessible to add to the installment of harms.
The company should promptly seek legal counsel and take the necessary measures to reduce the likelihood of liability. This might entail notifying the insurers of the company about the possibility of a claim, keeping evidence that is relevant to the design and installation of the wind turbines, and working with Ms. Lemni's legal representatives to find relevant documents and information.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Bibliography
Books/Journals
Sokol, Karen C, Seeking (some) Climate justice in state tort law, (2020) 95(3) Washington Law Review 1383-1440
Wallace,Richard E.(Rick),,Jr, and William L. Anderson, Torts, courts and attorneys general: Tort litigation by states, (2020) 87(2) Defense Counsel Journal 1-28, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/torts-courts-attorneys-general-tort-litigation/docview/2430111760/se-2
Websites
Cassiejohnson, Negligence - duty of care. Minnesota Lawyer (2015). https://search.proquest.com/docview/1654844030?accountid=30552
Tort blowout preventer, Wall Street Journal (2014), https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tort-blowout-preventer/docview/1615677575/se-2
Woolfson, Amy, Right, for the wrong reasons': The supreme court considers private nuisance Lawyer2B (2014) https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/right-wrong-reasons-supreme-court-considers/docview/1747860868/se-2
Smiley, Agenique, Tort law- private nuisance recovery requires that interference be ‘substantial’. Michigan Lawyers Weekly (2017) https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tort-law-private-nuisance-recovery-requires-that/docview/1925034922/se-2
Cases
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001]207 CLR 21
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161
Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534
Munro v Southern Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683
Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic)
Caldwell v Maguire. Caldwell v Fitzgerald [2001] EWCA Civ 1054
Would you like to schedule a callback?
Send us a message and we will get back to you
Highlights
Earn While You Learn With Us
Confidentiality Agreement
Money Back Guarantee
Live Expert Sessions
550+ Ph.D Experts
21 Step Quality Check
100% Quality
24*7 Live Help
On Time Delivery
Plagiarism-Free
81 Isla Avenue Glenroy, Mel, VIC, 3046 AU
