Research on an Australian case from the list below (See third page) andf: 1. Select the party you...

Question

Research on an Australian case from the list below (See third page) andf: 1. Select the party you wish to represent ie. Plaintiff or Defendant; You don’t have to choose both! 2. Research your selected case. 3. Read and understand your selected case. 4. Prepare and present a summary of the case and your selected party’s arguments. 5. Present the report in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is appropriate. All members must present on the day or a fail will be recorded. Presentations will be of a maximum of 5 minutes. Maximum word limit – 2,000 words PLEASE NOTE: • Submit group assignment on-line (must do Safe Assign Check). Only one group member. • Please fill in and submit to your lecturer the Business Law Rubric Report in class by Week 5 the latest. • Each team member also must also submit a Law Peer Evaluation with their presentation/video • NO SAFE ASSIGN WORK WILL NOT BE CORRECTED AND THE GROUP WILL HAVE A MARK OF 0 (ZERO). • GROUPS OF LESS THAN 3 AND MORE THAN 5 PEOPLE WILL RECEIVE A PENALTY OF 10 POINTS. • Proper referencing in accordance with school regulations
	
Document Preview: HA2022 BUSINESS LAW 
 
T1 2017  
GROUP ASSIGNMENT

Due date: Weeks 6 to 12 
Maximum marks: 20 (20%) 
 
Instructions:   
This assignment is to be submitted by the due date ONLY soft-copy 
(Safeassign – Bb) 
 
The assignment is to be submitted in accordance with assessment 
policy stated in the Subject Outline and Student Handbook. 
 
It is the responsibility of the student submitting the work to ensure 
that the work is in fact his/her own work. Ensure that when 
incorporating the works of others into your submission that it 
appropriately acknowledged. 
 
Group assignment – students are to group themselves to a minimum of 
3 and a maximum of 5 students per groupResearch on an Australian case from the list below (See third page) andf:  
 
1. Select the party you wish to represent ie. Plaintiff or Defendant; You don’t 
have to choose both! 
2. Research your selected case. 
3. Read and understand your selected case. 
4. Prepare and present a summary of the case and your selected party’s 
arguments. 
5. Present the report in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which 
is appropriate. All members must present on the day or a fail will be 
recorded. Presentations will be of a maximum of 5 minutes. 
 
Maximum word limit – 2,000 words

PLEASE NOTE: 
 
• Submit group assignment on-line (must do Safe Assign Check). Only one 
group member. 
 
• Please fill in and submit to your lecturer the Business Law Rubric Report in 
class by Week 5 the latest. 
 
• Each team member also must also submit a Law Peer Evaluation with their 
presentation/video 
 
• NO SAFE ASSIGN WORK WILL NOT BE CORRECTED AND THE 
GROUP WILL HAVE A MARK OF 0 (ZERO).   
 
• GROUPS OF LESS THAN 3 AND MORE THAN 5 PEOPLE WILL 
RECEIVE A PENALTY OF 10 POINTS. 
 
• Proper referencing in accordance with school regulationsBUSINESS LAW CASES TO CHOOSE FROM  
 
1. Nagel v Rottnest Island Authority (1993)  
2. Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)  
3. Roads and Traffic Authority v...

David · Accepted Answer

Running Head: LAW  1
Corporation Law of Australia
Running Head: LAW  2 
Introduction  
To conduct research of an Australian case, L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council 
(1981) is selected as a case among other given case because of certain reasons.  This case is 
related to the mis-information and breach of the duty between seller of a property and buyer 
of a property. This paper will present the summary of the selected case through the help of 
the view of a party involved in the selected case this is plaintiff. To define the summary, I 
will wish to represent the role of plaintiff because this party is generally considered as a 
weaker party which is harassed by the stronger party such as defender. This paper will 
explain the case from the view of the plaintiff.  
Summary of Case 
According to case, Shaddock wants to purchase a property which was a part of the 
government’s property and located the area of the Council. As per the case, Shaddock gave 
the proposal to Parramatta City Council to purchase a property. The purpose behind this 
proposal was to redevelopment. The solicitor of Shaddock orally asked whether the property 
was come under the proposal of road widening area. But the council gave the answer in the 
negative. Carroll made a telephone inquiry to know the proposal related to any local road 
widening project (BarNetwork Pty Limited, 2017). But he got the negative answer. Further, 
the Council of Shaddock lodged a well written application for several certificates. Through 
this request, the document lodged to the Council was also to know about the proposal for the 
widening the road but he also received the negative answer.   
After this, Shaddock entered into a contract. This is because Mr Carroll thought that 
the indication related to the widening of the road was clear that the property will not face the 
widening issues after the purchasing contract. As per his experience, towards the working of 
the Council, Carroll was also believed that the Council generally used red ink for typing on 
the foot of the certificate to display information related to any proposal (Kent 1993). On the 
Running Head: LAW  3 
other hand, the examination of the documents related to the working of the Council since 
January 1971 to July 1973 defined that there were 650 projects related to road widening 
proposal. As per the situation, there was no evidence that can explain the failure to making a 
defence towards the certificate issued to Carroll (Gillies 2004).  As per the case, Carroll was 
relied on the exercise of the Council on the basis of reasonable care during the reply on 
certificate on the road widening area.   
In this case, the court held that the duty of care owned by the Council. It means the 
council was responsible to give the information to a party when the party insists for this. On 
the other hand, Council was also responsible to provide the advice to Carroll on the basis of 
duty for exercising reasonable care (Kent 1993).   
As per the reply of the Council, it can be stated that the council carelessly replied to 
the party that there was no proposal of the road widening proposal but there were several 
proposals also in the row. Because of such proposal, the property has lost its values. In this 
case, the appellants said in court that he made decision on the reliance of the Council and 
information given by the council to them. But the defendant did not consider the situation and 
conduct the action with negligently. During the hearing,

Research on an Australian case from the list below (See third page) andf: 1. Select the party you wish to represent ie. Plaintiff or Defendant; You don’t have to choose both! 2. Research your selected...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment