Legal Institutions Assignment Help
Law Extension Committee
INSTRUCTIONS
In Legal Institutions, there are TWO COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENTS. Thefirst assignment is for practice and feedback. Comments will be provided, but no marks assigned other than ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. The second assignment will be marked.
Assignments must be submitted by the due date unless an extension has been granted. Extensions need to be requested by email prior to the assignment due date and specific supporting evidence provided. Late assignments attract a penalty of one mark out of 20, or 5% of the total marks available, per day. A pass mark is 50%. Assignments that are received more than ten days after the published due date will not be accepted. Please note that students granted an extension must still submit their assignment within ten days of the original assignment due date.
Assignments are assessed according to the “Assignment Grading and Assessment Criteria” outlined in the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments.
This guide also contains the rules and guidelines regarding the presentation of assignments and instructions on how to submit an assignment and is available from the Guides and Policies section of Canvas. Please read this guide carefully before completing and submitting this assignment.
The maximum word length for this assignment is 2200 words (inclusive of footnotes but not bibliography). Penalties apply for exceeding this limit by 10% or more.
Completed assignments should be lodged through Canvas and received by 11:59pm (Australian Eastern Daylight Time) on Sunday 13 January 2019.
This assignment has two questions. Each question is worth 10 marks.
The total word limit is 2200 words. The word limit for Question 1 is 1000 words. The word limit for Question 2 is 1200 words.
Question One (1000 words)
Your written work should conform to all appropriate conventions of grammar and spelling and legal referencing.
Gina was establishing her new coffee shop. She went shopping for a rug for the shop as she knew that there would be a large number of people in and out of the shop, and consequently wanted something that would be tough and not wear and tear.
She saw a blue rug on special at The Clever Carpet Company. She enquired of the sales assistant about how easy it would be to clean, explaining that she needed something which could stand up to heavy traffic in her shop. The sales assistant assured her that the rug was a good quality wool, which was fully stain protected, and any stain could be cleaned away easily. Even on special the rug was very expensive, but Gina thought it was worth the price, and so bought it for $48,000.
Gina contacted Fastway, a courier company to pick up and deliver the new rug. She rang and gave her details over an automated voice system. The system provided a price, and advised that the rug would be delivered in two days’ time and that a tax invoice would be sent. Gina gave her credit card details for payment when asked if she accepted the quotation provided.
The rug was not in fact delivered for another 5 weeks – accompanied by the tax invoice for the original payment and a bill for an additional $50,000 for storage charges. The reverse of the tax invoice was headed ‘Terms and Conditions’ and advised that all contracts were made subject to these terms and conditions. Paragraph 49 noted that the courier company accepted no responsibility for timely delivery, and would store customer’s goods at their warehouse until a suitable delivery vehicle was available. Storage was in accordance with the storage conditions on their website. When Gina checked their website, she found that the courier company’s charges for storage were $10,000 a week – payable COD.
The rug was permanently stained by spilt coffee on the second day of the shop being opened. When Gina contacted The Clever Carpet Company they told her they were very sorry but refused to allow her to return the rug.
Using and applying the law as found in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2QB 163 and s55 Australian Consumer Law and any relevant cases advise Gina.
Question Two (1200 words)
Your written work should conform to all appropriate conventions of grammar and spelling
Legal referencing
On July 1 2011 the Governor General assented to the Use of Public Maritime Waters Act 2011 (Cth). The Act provided in part as follows:
- Definitions
‘Dumping’ includes having charge of, being the originator of or being the last human actor in a chain of events which results in a thing being deposited in maritime waters.
- Use of public spaces
Any person responsible for the dumping of any objects, things or any other items in any maritime waters shall be liable for a fine of up to $10,000.
Prior to the passage of the Use of Public of Public Maritime Waters Act 2011 (Cth) the Second Reading Speech of the Commonwealth Environment Minister included the following comments:
Spring is a particularly difficult time for us in terms of maritime park management. Increasingly we have problems with people using our parks as an extension of their own backyard. The lack of respect shown by people using the parks makes it difficult for protection of maritime sea life. I think we are all familiar with shark attacks brought on by people bringing their dogs to the beach which attracts them – but this is often the least of our problems.
Maggie loved going to the Commonwealth Oceanside National Park with her dog Trixie. On 1 September 2011 she took Trixie to the beach at the National Park and left Trixie to play alone in the water while she went to buy fish and chips for lunch.
Returning later Maggie was charged with an offence under section 12 of the Use of Public of Public Maritime Waters Act 2011 (Cth) by an interested Federal park ranger.
