answer the questions

(SAIBT)

FOUNDATIONS OF BUSINESS LAW

Assignment 1 (20%) –1000 words

Due- Week 10

Instructions to Students

All assignments must be submitted electronically using Turnitin by 9 pm May 1 This assessment is a case study comprising a fictional scenario from which you are asked to advise the parties with reference to the relevant legal principles based on Topic 4(2) – Contract Law – Genuine Consent. The lecture notes for this assignment are on the portal for the Week 23-29 March. There are a total of THREE questions. All questions must be answered. The weightings for each question are as follows: Question 1 – 6% Question 2 – 7% Question 3 – 7%

IRAC Method of Analysing Legal Problems

Each question must be answered using the IRAC method of problem solving that is recommended by the UNISA Law School and which has been demonstrated in worekshops.

You need to answer each question under the IRAC headings; however, you do not need to repeat the same rules if they have been referred to under RULES in a previous answer. The assignment is not an essay; therefore, you do not require an introduction and a conclusion. The maximum word limit for the assignment is 1000 words; however, you do not have to write 1000 words. Note: extra marks will NOT be given for additional information that exceeds the word limit. Marks may in fact be deducted. As this is not a research assignment it is sufficient that you only refer to the information in the lecture notes which can be referenced as: “FBL – Lecture Notes 2015”. Wherever possible in your answer cases should be referred to in support of the principles of law that are applied to the facts.

Instructions for referencing cases

When stating or applying a well-known legal principle it is necessary to refer to the

relevant case that the principle came from. This is done by providing the case name

immediately after the principle (as shown below) or as a footnote. For example:

Architects and engineers may be liable to subsequent purchasers for economic

loss due to defects in the property at the time of purchase which was caused by

their negligence: Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609.

Note: You do not have to provide details about the case referred to; however, you

will need to provide the complete citation for that case. This is the reference for that

particular case and it must either appear in text after the case name (as shown

above), as a footnote or in a reference list at the conclusion of the paper (as shown

below). If you choose to provide the citation for a case in text (as above) then there

is no need to provide a reference list of cases at the end of your paper.

If cases are listed in a reference list they must be listed in alphabetical order

according to the first letter of the case name as follows:

- Bolton v Madden (1873) LR 9 QB 55

- R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227

- SVT v Best & Less (2001) 187 ALR 302

- Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) [1991] 1 QB 1 Cases that are referred to in a reference list (as above) must be referenced separately and exclusively from other sources of reference.

Refer to the Australian Legal Guide to Citation (3 rd

Ed, 2010) for more detailed instructions about legal referencing. Access to this Guide can be obtained through the following University of Queensland website: http://www.library.uq.edu.au/endnote/aglc/aglc3_ENX4.pdf.

READ THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL ACCOUNT AND ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS AT THE END: George is a music teacher and also a collector of new and antique musical equipment. While browsing through Joe’s music shop he came across a trumpet which the proprietor of the shop, Joe, informed him used to belong to the now retired famous trumpet player, Tommy Trumpet. Joe had purchased the trumpet from a lady who claimed that she was Tommy Trumpet’s former housekeeper. Usually Joe would have musical equipment examined by an instrument technician; however, upon examination he was sure that this was an original Tommy trumpet. Also as the lady was selling it for such a low price he did not want to delay the sale, so he bought it straight away and paid $500 for it. Joe offered to sell the trumpet to George for $1,000. George said that he was definitely interested but needed to sort out his finances so could he let Joe know by the end of the week to which Joe agreed. During that week Joe did get the trumpet examined by a musical equipment technician and discovered that it could not have been the original one played by Tommy Trumpet, since this one was made after Tommy’s retirement. George returned at the end of the week and accepted Joe’s offer to sell the trumpet for $1,000; however, Joe did not inform him what he had since discovered about the trumpet. George proudly displayed the trumpet in his studio enjoying the compliments that he received about it from his students. In fact one of George’s students, Robbie, was so impressed that he made George such a good offer to buy it which George could not resist. George said: “it’s the original trumpet played by Tommy Trumpet so I will be sad to see it go, but I know that you will take good care of it.” Soon after buying the trumpet Robbie entered it for sale in an auction of musical equipment. After examining it to determine its authenticity the experts all agreed that it was not the original trumpet owned by Tommy Trumpet. Robbie had paid George $2,000 for it and was determined to get his money back. George is refusing to return Robbie’s money.

ANSWER ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

(1) Advise Robbie whether he is entitled to get his money back from George?

[6 marks]

(2) Advise George whether he has any cause of action against Joe?

[7 marks]

(3) If Joe, the antique dealer, genuinely believed that the trumpet was the original one played by Tommy Trumpet advise George whether he would still have any cause of action against him? [7 marks] TOTAL: 20 marks