Paul, manager of Festive Foods, emailed Holly’s order form to her, ordering 50 trees, with a note attached saying: “Will payment by cheque next week be OK?” Holly did not reply.

On 10th December Holly hand delivered letters to her three local supermarkets. The letters stated: “Special offer: I have 100 trees left for sale for £700, cash on delivery. If you wish to make an order, please fill in the order form and email it to me to facilitate a swift transaction. First come first served”. Stephen, manager of Painsbury’s supermarket, ordered the 100 trees by email using his own order form, rather than Holly’s, with Painsburys’s terms and conditions on the back.

Sam, manageress of Tresco Ltd decided to accept the offer by posting her order on Holly’s form. Holly did not receive the letter, which got lost in the Christmas post.

Later the same day, Stephen sent another email to Holly, using her order form: “Here is my order for the 100 trees. Will pay cash, as long as you deliver within 7 days.” Unfortunately Holly’s PC was not operating correctly and the email was not received.

Advise as to whether Holly had a contract with Festive, Painsbury and Tresco using the legal principles concerning the rules of offer and acceptance.

Word Limit: 1500 words excluding footnotes and bibliography.

How to submit:

Written Coursework:

Ensure that you consult your individual module guides for details on individual assessments.

Presentation

The assignment itself should be in Arial font size 11 and in double line spacing to allow for the markers’ comments.

Your name must not appear on your assignment. All assessed coursework is marked anonymously using your student registration number on your ID card. Your student registration number and module name should appear on every page of your essay and each page should be numbered. This is best achieved by use of the header and footer tool. You are also required to put your student registration number and module title in the file name of your assignment when submitting on StudyNet (e.g. Crime and Deviance 14043489.doc).

Word Length[footnoteRef:1] [1: Students should note that in Microsoft Word, if the reference mark (footnote number) is inside the punctuation mark, then the punctuation gets counted as a new work. If the reference mark is outside the punctuation mark, then it will not be counted. E.g. He said 1. = 3 words; He said 1, = 3 words; He said. 1 = 2 words; He said, 1 = 2 words.]

Your word count must appear at the end of your work.

Word limits will be strictly applied as you are being assessed on your ability to produce an answer within a proscribed format. Do not exceed the word limit in relation to your answer. Students who exceed the word count by one word will be capped at 40%.

The word count for coursework will NOT include footnotes or the bibliography. However, footnotes must not include material that should be in the body of the answer or be used as a means to circumvent the word count.

Late Submission of Coursework

Submission deadlines are not flexible. Students should submit their work well in advance of the deadline (ideally several hours) to be sure of a reliable internet connection and sufficient upload time. Work submitted at any point (including seconds) after the deadline is recorded as a late submission and will be capped.

All students must note that failure to submit coursework by the dates and time specified has SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. The penalties for late submission of coursework are:

a. Coursework (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework) relating to modules at Levels 0, 4, 5 and 6, submitted up to one (1) week after the published deadline will receive a maximum numeric grade of 40.

b. Coursework (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework) relating to modules at Level 7 submitted up to one (1) week after the published deadline will receive a maximum numeric grade of 50.

c. Referred coursework submitted after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0). (Unless there is an agreed extension to the deadline or there are Serious Adverse Circumstances)

d. Coursework (including deferred coursework) submitted later than one (1) week after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0). (Unless there is an agreed extension to the deadline or there are Serious Adverse Circumstances)

Referencing

All quotations from, or use of other writers’ work must be properly referenced- that is, you must give the author, title, and date of publication of the work concerned, and the page or section number of the passage quoted or cited. Reference style should remain consistent throughout each submitted essay.

Your coursework answer should be properly referenced using the Oxford Referencing System (OSCOLA) see www.law.ox.ac.uk

You should include a full bibliography at the end of your work.

Turnitin

All modules within the School will offer students the opportunity to use Turnitin formatively. Formative submission will be limited to one attempt per assignment in line with the University policy which seeks to support the development of students’ academic writing skills and to promote good academic practice. Students will be able to make use of of Turnitin for the larger assessments worth 50% or more. These are mainly positioned within Semester B. All final year dissertations/individual projects should be run through Turnitin. These are all submitted in Semester B/C.

Students will use Turnitin from the options below according to the level of study and specific module requirements:

· Summative essays worth at least 50% of the module mark;

· Specific pieces of coursework which require submission of a Turnitin report as designated by the Programme Leader;

· Turnitin may be used on individual pieces of work in which plagiarism is suspected, taking account of the level of study, the level of writing maturity expected of the student and the nature of the assignment task.

Extensions

Extensions are only available in exceptional circumstances and requests MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 3 WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE HAND-IN DATE and sent using the official form at the back of this handbook to the following email address:

[email protected]

You will receive a decision within 48 HOURS. All requests must use the [email protected] email address as extension requests sent to individual members of staff will not be considered. Please do not send multiple requests for the same extension. Only authorised extensions will not receive a late penalty. Where illness is put forward as being the extenuating circumstance this must be supported by independent evidence from a doctor or other appropriate professional. Financial difficulties will not be regarded as adverse circumstances to justify extension of a deadline, neither will computer crashes or disk errors. Coursework received after the granted extension date will have the appropriate penalties applied to them.

Serious Adverse Circumstances

Serious Adverse Circumstances are significant circumstances beyond a student’s control that would have affected your ability to perform to your full potential if you were to sit or submit an assessment at the appointed time. As a general rule, if a student has a valid claim for serious adverse circumstances then they should not sit the affected examination(s) or submit the affected coursework(s). If the Board of Examiners accepts your claim, you will be offered a deferred assessment. Students will no longer be able to sit/submit any type of assessment and then later claim that their work/performance has been affected by Serious Adverse Circumstances.

If you sit/submit an assessment, by doing so you are stating that you are fit and well to do so. Therefore, you will not be able to claim later that Serious Adverse Circumstances have affected your work/performance. Students who believe they have Serious Adverse Circumstances which could affect their performance, are responsible for notifying the Chairperson of the Board in writing of their circumstances. This should be done at the earliest time possible, before the Board of Examiner’s meeting. (For more information see: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/secreg/upr/AS14.htm - the Serious Adverse Circumstances Form is located on the programme pages on StudyNet).

What happens when I submit an assessment?

· All work is marked anonymously.

· All work is marked against grading criteria, which is detailed in this document.

· Each element of assessment has a marking scheme attached to it to ensure that teams which have more than one marker are marking against objectively determined principles.

· Once marked, a sample of the assignments will be moderated by at least one other tutor to ensure that there is consistency in both the mark and the feedback given.

· You will receive interim feedback 3 weeks after the submission deadline.

· In some cases (such as a dissertation), work is double-blind marked meaning that assignments are marked independently by two markers and a final mark is agreed.

· Your marked assignment and mark will be returned within four calendar weeks. If there is a delay to this (for example due to marker illness), you will be notified in advance by the Associate Dean (Academic Quality Assurance).

· All marks are provisional and await confirmation by the relevant Board of Examiners.

If you have any queries about your marked work following its return, please arrange an appointment to speak with the marker in the first instance.

Students’ coursework will be returned to them together with feedback through StudyNet in a timely manner, no later than four (4) calendar weeks after the submission deadline. Any exceptions to this must be agreed by the Associate Dean of School (Academic Quality Assurance) and notified to students in advance of the expiration of the four (4) week period. For work of an on-going nature, such as a major project or dissertation, supervising staff will ensure that students are provided with feedback at interim stages.

1. Academic Offences

Specific detail relating to academic offences is located in UPR AS13 & AS14. Assessment (by examination or coursework) can be stressful, but is part of everyday life for students and most people manage it well. There are a small number who seek to gain an unfair advantage over their fellow students by acts of academic misconduct. Academic misconduct comes in various forms but the most common are plagiarism (i.e. presenting another person’s work as your own), falsification of data, collusion and cheating. The University takes a very dim view of such activity and the penalties can be severe. The best advice is not to do it in the first place. If you are finding a module difficult then speak to one of the teaching staff.

a. Cheating

To attempt to gain an unfair, improper or dishonest advantage in the assessment process; to gain an unfair, improper or dishonest advantage in the assessment process; where on the balance of probability it could reasonably be construed that a candidate intended to gain an unfair, improper or dishonest advantage in the assessment process. Cheating includes:

a) Impersonation - either where a student allows any other person to take an assessment on their behalf or to present themselves as being that student or where a current University of Hertfordshire student takes an assessment on behalf of another University of Hertfordshire student;

b) Obtaining or attempting to obtain unauthorised access to examination papers;

c) The copying of, or attempting to copy, the work of another candidate in the examination or other in class assessment, whether by overlooking what he or she has written or is writing or by asking him or her for information in whatever form;

d) The introduction into an examination room (or any other room in which a formal assessment is taking place) of aids including books, notes, personal notes or revision notes in any form, papers, stationery, computer disks or other devices of any kind other than those permitted in the rubric of the examination paper. This includes, for example, unauthorised information stored in the memory of a pocket calculator, in a mobile telephone, personal organiser or any other device;

e) Requesting a temporary absence from an examination room (or any other room in which a formal assessment is taking place) with the intention of gaining, or attempting to gain, access to information that may be relevant to a formal assessment;

f) False statements made in order to receive special considerations by the Board of Examiners or to obtain extensions to deadlines or exemption from work;

g) Assisting or attempting to assist another University of Hertfordshire student to gain or attempt to gain an unfair, improper, or dishonest advantage in the assessment process;

h) The purchase or theft of material submitted for assessment;

i) Academic misconduct offences as defined by section 2.1.4, a - f, where on a balance of probability, it could reasonably be construed that a candidate attempted or intended to gain an unfair, improper or dishonest advantage in the assessment process.

b. Plagiarism:

The misappropriation or use of others’ ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission. This may include, but is not limited to:

a) The importing of phrases from or all or part of another person’s work without using quotation marks and identifying the source;

b) Without acknowledgement of the source, making extensive use of another person’s work, either by summarising or paraphrasing the work merely by changing a few words or by altering the order in which the material is presented;

c) The use of the ideas of another person without acknowledgement of the source or the presentation of work which substantially comprises the ideas of another person and which represents these as being the ideas of the candidate. (For the avoidance of doubt, plagiarism may be intentional or unintentional)

c. Collusion:

Evidence of the representation by an individual of work which he or she has undertaken jointly with another person as having been undertaken independently of that person.

1. Grading Criteria

The following tables are provided by the University to assist in the interpretation of numeric grades given for assessments:

Levels 0, 4, 5, 6 (Undergraduate Level)		Level 7 (Masters Level)
Numeric Grade awarded	Interpretation of Grade		Numeric Grade awarded	Interpretation of Grade
	Grade Descriptor	Equivalent Classification Descriptor			Grade Descriptor	Equivalent Classification Descriptor

80-100	Outstanding	1st Class Honours/ Distinction		80-100	Outstanding	1st Class Honours/ Distinction
70-79	Excellent			70-79	Excellent

60-69	Very good	Upper 2nd Class Honours/ Commendation		60-69	Very good	Upper 2nd Class Honours/ Commendation

50-59	Good	Lower 2nd Class Honours/Pass		50-59	Good/ satisfactory	Lower 2nd Class Honours/Pass
				50		Referred Pass

40-49	Satisfactory	3rd Class Honours/Pass		40-49	Marginal fail	Not applicable
40		Referred Pass
				30-39	Clear fail
30-39	Marginal fail	Not applicable
20-29	Clear fail			20-29
0-19	Little or nothing of merit			0-19	Little or nothing of merit

LLB Programme Handbook

More guidance on the School Assessment policies is available in the LLB Programme Handbook which is available on StudyNet.

Expectations of written assessment at Level 4

Presentation & structure

Includes:

Content / Knowledge

Includes:

Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources

includes:

Comprehension & Application

includes:

Presentation of References

Includes:

Clear introduction addressing the issues

Followed by a logical and coherent discussion

With a clear conclusion drawn from your discussion

Identify the main legal issues

State the law or other sources accurately

Demonstrate use of basic texts and leading case law or other sources

Consider both sides of an argument

Integrate supporting material into your argument

Comprehension:

Use your material to show you clearly understand the content you are considering

Review the question and assess what you are being asked to do

Application: show your understanding by linking to relevant supporting examples from your sources – statute, case law, academic writers etc.

Use footnotes at a basic level to cite your references

Include all references from your footnotes in your bibliography

Use the OSCOLA referencing system – information available on Studynet under Learning Resources and the Law Subject Toolkit

Key tips:

Aim for good use of paragraphs to develop your discussion

Put points in a useful order to the question

Write in clear English and avoid informal language

Avoid inappropriate abbreviations

Use the spell and grammar checker and double check unusual words such as case names

Ensure the spell checker is set to UK English

Key tips:

Aim for a balance of appropriate detail depending on the significance of the issue to the answer

Avoid being too descriptive

Focus your material around the question set

Avoid irrelevant material

Key tip:

For a higher mark review footnotes in your texts and explore whether one or more could be used in your answer

Ensure you look up the reference to ascertain its relevance

Key tips:

Review the instruction in the Q – words such as ‘Compare’, ‘Explain’, ‘Discuss’ are aimed at comprehension whilst words such as ‘Apply’ ‘Demonstrate’, ‘Illustrate’ require you to support your analysis in the context of the question

In a problem question scenario you are likely to be used to advise one or more of the parties in the question. Bear this in mind when constructing your answer to ensure you support your understanding and application to those you are asked to advise, remembering to outline any counter arguments against them

Key tip:

Avoid plagiarism – use quotation marks and reference the quotation

If this is an individual piece of work ensure you avoid collusion when preparing and writing your answer

Detailed criteria on mark ranges below:

Written work Assessment and Grading Criteria: Level 4

Numeric Grade

Grade Descriptor

Written Work Level 4 Grading Criteria

Presentation & structure

Content / Knowledge

Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources

Comprehension & Application

Presentation of References

80-100

Outstanding

work

Outstanding presentation & clarity.

No significant grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding.

Outstanding breadth & depth of sources used. Outstanding integration of sources into work.

Outstanding level of comprehension & some application.

Highly developed / focused work.

Outstanding standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.

Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system.

70-79

Excellent work

Excellent structure.

Fluent writing style with very few errors.

Excellent level of knowledge & demonstrated. Covers all relevant points & issues.

Excellent breadth & depth.

Excellent integration of sources into work.

Excellent level of comprehension & some application to issues.

Excellent standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.

Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system.

60-69

Very good work

Very good clear structure.

Articulate & fluent writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.

Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Some minor issues not fully explored or applied

Very good breadth & depth appropriate to topic.

Sources integrated very well.

Very good level of, comprehension & some application but not consistently taken to full extent.

Very good standard of referencing within text with general accuracy to those on list.

Use of recommended referencing system.

50-59

Good work

Good clear presentation & structure with paragraphing.

Writing is mainly clear but some spelling &/ or grammatical errors.

Good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Most major issues explored with some minor aspects not considered

Good breadth & depth appropriate to topic.

Sources integrated well.

Good level of comprehension & some application but some issues could be addressed or developed further.

Some minor omissions.

Good standard of referencing within text with most accurate to those on list.

Use of recommended referencing system.

40-49

Satisfactory work

Satisfactory but a basic structure.

Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors.

Satisfactory level of knowledge & understanding but with limited integration into topic set. Some major issues not fully explored and minor issues omitted.

Satisfactory breadth & depth appropriate to topic.

Sources integrated in some places.

Satisfactory level of comprehension & some application but some matters superficially addressed or omitted

Basic referencing within text & consistent use of referencing system.

Some inaccuracies in recording.

30-39

Marginal Fail

Weak format, limited or poor structure.

Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.

Unsatisfactory evidence of knowledge & understanding with limited exploration or omission of the major issues

Limited or muddled understanding of the topic with limited reference to relevant sources with some irrelevant to topic.

Limited evidence of comprehension & some application.

More development & comment needed. Answer generally limited to accurate description.

Use of referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Limited referencing within the text. Limited accuracy of in-text references compared to those in the final Reference list.

20 – 29

Clear Fail

Inadequate format & poor paragraphing / signposting.

Inappropriate writing style

Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar.

Inadequate evidence of knowledge & understanding with very limited exploration or omission of the major issues.

Very limited understanding of topic with very limited reference to relevant sources and possible reference to irrelevant sources

Inadequate.

Very limited evidence of comprehension & some application.

Answer generally limited to description, some of which is inaccurate.

Inadequate

Inaccurate use of referencing system or absence of use of system

1 – 19

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit.

Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.

Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.

Nothing of merit.

No evidence of appropriate knowledge & understanding.

Nothing of merit

No breadth or depth to answer nor reference to relevant sources.

Nothing of merit.

No evidence of comprehension & some application.

Nothing of merit

Referencing system was not or very poorly used.

OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide

Primary Sources

Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.

Cases

Give the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884

R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410

Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)

When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint after the court.

Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45]

Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37]

R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31

If citing a particular judge:

Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)

Statutes and statutory instruments

Act of Supremacy 1558

Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)

Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166

EU legislation and cases

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13

Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5

Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48

European Court of Human Rights

Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10

Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124

Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004)

Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188

Secondary Sources

Books

Give the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268

Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)

K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998)

Contributions to edited books

Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006)

Encyclopedias

Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53

Journal articles

Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440

When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint.

JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’ (2001) 117 LQR 42, 64

Online journals

Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010) 1(1) EJLT < http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 > accessed 27 July 2010

Command papers and Law Commission reports

Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5

Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17

Websites and blogs

Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009) <www.nakedlaw.com/2009/05/index.html> accessed 19 November 2009

Newspaper articles

Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3

Hertfordshire Law School

Extension Request Form

Name of student:		FOR SCHOOL OF LAW USE ONLY
Student Number:	Programme of Study:
	Year of Study:
Reason for Extension Request:
(To be completed by student): Please list assessments you require an extension for:	(To be completed by Cohort Tutor: )
Module & Module Code	Assessment element	Original submission date	Requested extension	Please indicate that sufficient evidence has been provided to grant extension:	New Deadline:
e.g. Contract Law 4LAW1014	Coursework	xx/xx/20xx	7 Days

This form should be used where you have grounds for requesting an extension to an assessment deadline. Requests for extensions must be made at least 3 working days before the deadline to [email protected] and will be considered by the Cohort Tutors. You will receive a decision within 48 hours. Reasons for the request must be set out below and accompanied by supporting medical or other evidence.

Contract Law Coursework

Information about the assignment:

Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources

Comprehension & Application

Demonstrate use of basic texts and leading case law or other sources Consider both sides of an argument Integrate supporting material into your argument

Key tips:

Review the instruction in the Q – words such as ‘Compare’, ‘Explain’, ‘Discuss’ are aimed at comprehension whilst words such as ‘Apply’ ‘Demonstrate’, ‘Illustrate’ require you to support your analysis in the context of the question

Written Work Level 4 Grading Criteria

Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources

Comprehension & Application

Demonstrate use of basic texts and leading case law or other sources

Consider both sides of an argument

Integrate supporting material into your argument