PSIDDIQUI – Assessment 2 LIP –
Final
by Prometheus Siddiqui
Submission date: 30-Nov-2020 05:55AM (UTC+1100)
Submission ID: 1459286645
File name: PSIDDIQUI_Assessment2LIP_Final.docx (45.92K)
Word count: 3088
Character count: 15391
1 2 3
4
5
7 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
28
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
FINAL GRADE
32/40
PSIDDIQUI – Assessment 2 LIP – Final
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
Hello Prometheus,
A very solid start in in a new discipline. And you write
well. Well done.
I have made numerous comments throughout the
paper, please be sure to read all of them (they go
through to the end of the Bibliography). Here I make the
following overall comments.
(i) At an overall level the paper follows the task
instructions, but the actual execution could have done
with a little more attention to detail. For eg: the paper
does not cover all of the areas of law detailed in the
instructions (it does not consider duress at
equity/harassment at statutory law [here note s 50
ACL], and s 106 ACL with respect to safety standards
would have been useful too); and at the same time it
includes an area of law not in the instructions (bait
advertising). Always stay tight to the task instructions,
not only do they tell you what you need to do, they also
indicate where the marks lay.
In terms of sources, there are existing cases on
children’s nightwear and the safety standards and
these would have been analogous and current (and
arguably more analogous than some of the cases were
included).
(ii) There was application of law to facts – good work,
make sure you keep this as the focus, keep it tight and
even. Consider each legal issue one-by-one, don’t run
together.
Also, always to consider the facts very carefully when
you find a new area of law – step back and make sure
the law fits the facts – rather than reading the facts to try
to make them fit the law.
(iii) In terms of remedies, bringing the contract to an
end are noted, which is good. I do note the paper would
have benefitted from more attention to the full range of
remedies that might be available to the client. For
example, Minh entered the contract in the first place
because she considered it was a good business
decision for her small business. And so, if she can
obtain the goods as they are required to be, then she
could well still be interested in ways to keep the
contract on foot. It would mean she could still make that
profit that she recognised in the first instance. Your job
is to advise her of the full range of potential remedies;
and on the basis of that advice, her job will be to make
an informed decision about how to proceed.
Also, start to think about how she might make strategic
use of the potential for penalties against Justin.
(iv) Also in terms of remedies, it would have benefitted
the paper expressly to note the advantages of the
statutory remedies. That is, to include specific and
clear mention that Minh might want to choose the
legislative course of action rather than the general law
because of the wider range of available remedies.
In other words, specifically noting that the remedies
available under contract and even equity law are more
less straightforward and more limited than under the
CCA would provide a more complete contextual
understanding of the statutory option/s and, in
particular, would explain why the legislative course of
action might be preferable to the general law (ie: it
offers a broader range of remedies).
Importantly too, this comparative element instantiates
the historical development of this area of law –which is
something you ought to hold forward in your analysis
for Assessment 4;
(vi) As per the instructions the paper ought to have
given some attention to describing the legislative
function of Australian parliaments and/or the judicial
role would have benefitted the paper (recall this was
one of the explicit instructions for this Task). But this
was not touched upon at all.
(vii) The research steps were a good start. More detail
would have benefitted the paper.
(viii) The citation styles were excellent – only couple of
small points the fine-tune.
Prometheus, I hope my comments are helpful.
Best wishes for Assessment 4,
Julia.
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
Comment 1
Perfect start – well done.
Comment 2
Yes, Prometheus, it is in the textbook.
– However, given the point of this criterion is to demonstrate legal research skills I suggest that here
you could have taken the opportunity to do that by, in a sense, ‘reverse engineering’.
– That is, although you already know the source you could have identified a ‘legal research’ series of
steps by which the source can be located.
– That would more amply fulfil the requirements of this marking criteria.
Comment 3
Good threshold issue to establish.
PAGE 3
Comment 4
Great work.
Comment 5
If you take them into account then it is a given that they must be key/material.
Point = avoid tautology.
Strikethrough.
Comment 7
Good work.
Comment 8
Yes, goo, but do not pass that off. It is the work that this analysis ought to do for Minh – actually to do
it rather than just saying it needs to be done.
That is why Minh has come to you!
PAGE 4
Comment 9
Good work.
PAGE 5
Comment 10
Yes. Perfect.
Comment 11
And the fact that the transaction was in trade or commerce.
Comment 12
Where is jurisdiction. Citation styles apply in-text as well as in footnotes and Bib.
Comment 13
Capital C
Comment 14
Suggest cite the standards as the source of the law in this instance. This is the law that is being
applied in the analysis.
PAGE 6
Comment 15
Where does this come from?
Comment 16
How?
The standards exist, yes, but what law attaches Justin to those standards. What is the source of the
law that requires him to comply with those standards?
Check s 106 ACL.
Comment 17
Consider one issue at a time. Don’t bunch legal issues together – otherwise there is insufficiently
focussed application of law to facts and the analysis becomes ‘messy’.
PAGE 7
Comment 18
Good work.
Although better fact to support this is the actual number of pairs of pyjamas purchased – clearly a
quantity that is beyond use for individual consumer.
Comment 19
Good work, Prometheus. Good attention to and use of facts.
Comment 20
Suggest consider analogous precedent case first – take legal principle from that case and then apply
that law to case at hand.
Ie: need to show analogous case before can argue by analogy.
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
Comment 21
s 18
ie: space
AGLC!
Comment 22
No middle ‘e’ in legal judgment.
Strikethrough.
Comment 24
In obiter the judge noted…?
PAGE 10
Comment 25
How did you already know about this case?
Strikethrough.
Comment 27
Year is italicised too.
Comment 28
Beyond task instructions.
Instructions refer to you to contract and consumer issues between M and J – always stay tight to the
task instructions.
Strikethrough.
Comment 30
Which are what?
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
Comment 31
– Wait – what about repair/replacement?
– M entered the contract because it is a good deal for her small business. If she can obtain the goods
as they are required to be then presumably it still will be a good deal – she would still stand to make
good profit.
– Point = your job is to advise the client of all of the options. Otherwise they cannot make fully
informed decision.
Strikethrough.
Comment 33
Note that M might use this as leverage in any negotiations.
Comment 34
The ACCC does not get involved in individual cases.
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
Comment 35
– Bait advertising is enlivened by different facts. Here was a one-off sale and J never represented
there were more.
– Besides, bait advertising is not in the areas of law in the task instructions – always stay close to
instructions.
– The instructions refer you to duress (equitable or statutory – see s 50 ACL). That is a more arguable
fit with the facts.
Comment 36
Prometheus
– Ask yourself ‘bait for what?’ There is only one sale on offer here.
– This fact is more duress/harass-y – only ten seconds to decide about $30k is very arguably duress /
harassment.
– Task instructions!
Comment 37
‘… offered for only ten seconds.’
Put the qualification in the correct place. The offer was the offer – the qualification relates to the
limited time the offer was open.
PAGE 15
Comment 38
to whom?
Comment 39
1. No – not analogous factual situation.
2. In any event – again – put legal principle/rule first then apply to facts/situation at hand.
3. Can you see you are reversing the HIRAC/analogous reasoning logic by doing it this way?
PAGE 16
Comment 40
In this case…..
Comment 41
The case citation already provides this information.
Strikethrough.
Strikethrough.
Comment 44
Not analogous.
Justin always represented as one-off sale.
HIs pressure was ten seconds to get someone to make a quick decision (tp spend $30k).
Be careful with facts.
Besides – the task instructions!
PAGE 17
Comment 45
This does not demonstrate legal steps to show how you arrived at this source.
PAGE 18
Comment 46
Great work, Prometheus.
Comment 47
Do not include categories not used.
RUBRIC: LIP ASS 2 ANN BIBLIO 2020
RESEARCH TOOL (10%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
PRIMARY (20%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
75.00 / 100
70 / 100
Identifies appropriate legal research tool
The work demonstrates outstanding knowledge of and use of the relevant legal research
tools.
The work demonstrates excellent knowledge of and use of the relevant legal research
tools.
The work demonstrates advanced knowledge of and use of the relevant legal research
tools.
The work demonstrates solid competence in its knowledge of and use of the relevant legal
research tools
The work demonstrates basic level competence in its knowledge of and use of the
relevant legal research tools.
The work demonstrates a basic familiarity in its knowledge of and use of the relevant legal
research tools.
The work somehow demonstrates a basic familiarity with the relevant research tools, but
that familiarity is unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even a basic familiarity with the relevant legal research
tools, or that familiarity is very unclear.
The Proposal does not demonstrate any familiarity with the relevant legal research tools.
70 / 100
Locates relevant primary sources of law
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant case law and statutory
law to an outstanding level.
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant case law and statutory
law to an excellent level.
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant case law and statutory
law to an advanced level.
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant case law and statutory
law to a solidly competent level.
The work demonstrates basic level competence in using a number of different approaches
to locate relevant case law and statutory law.
The work demonstrates basic familiarity with using a number of different approaches to
locate relevant case law and statutory law
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
CURRENCY (10%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
SECONDARY (20%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
The work somehow demonstrates basic familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant case law and/or statutory law, but that familiarity is unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even a basic familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant case law and/or statutory law, or that familiarity is very
unclear.
The work does not demonstrate any familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant case law and/or statutory law.
80 / 100
Currency of primary sources
The currency of the primary sources of law sourced in the work is flawless.
The currency of the primary sources of law sourced in the work is achieved to an
excellent level.
The currency of the primary sources of law sourced in the work is achieved to an
advanced level.
The currency of the primary sources of law sourced in the work is achieved to a solidly
competent level.
The work achieves a basic level competence in sourcing current primary sources of law.
The work achieves a basic level of sourcing current primary sources of law.
The work somehow achieves a basic level of sourcing current primary sources of law, but
this work is unclear.
The work does not achieve even a basic level of sourcing current primary sources of law,
or that sourcing is very unclear.
The work does not source any current primary sources of law.
70 / 100
Locates relevant secondary sources
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant secondary sources of
law to an outstanding level.
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant secondary sources of
law to an excellent level.
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant secondary sources of
law to an advanced level.
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
APPLICATION (10%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
KNOWLEDGE (10%)
Using a number of different approaches the work locates relevant secondary sources of
law to a solidly competent level.
The work demonstrates basic level competence in using a number of different approaches
to locate relevant secondary sources of law.
The work demonstrates basic familiarity with using a number of different approaches to
locate relevant secondary sources of law.
The work somehow demonstrates basic familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant secondary sources of law, but that familiarity is unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even a basic familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant secondary sources of law, or that familiarity is very unclear.
The work does not demonstrate any familiarity with using a number of different
approaches to locate relevant secondary sources of law.
80 / 100
Applies relevant primary Law to material facts
Outstanding application of relevant law to legally material facts to suggest a credible
potential legal outcome.
Excellent application of relevant law to legally material facts to suggest a credible
potential legal outcome.
Advanced application of relevant law to legally material facts to suggest a credible
potential legal outcome.
Solidly competent application of relevant law to legally material facts to suggest a credible
potential legal outcome.
The work demonstrates basic competence in the application of relevant law to legally
material facts to suggest a credible potential legal outcome.
The work demonstrates basic familiarity with the process of the application of relevant law
to legally material facts to suggest a credible potential legal outcome.
The work somehow demonstrates basic application of relevant law to legally material
facts to suggest a credible potential legal outcome, but that application is unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even basic application of relevant law to legally material
facts to suggest a credible potential legal outcome, or that application is very unclear.
The work does not demonstrate application of relevant law to legally material facts to
suggest a credible potential legal outcome.
70 / 100
Knowledge of formal institutions and processes
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
ANALYSIS (10%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
Outstanding familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which shape the
development of Australian law.
Excellent familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which shape the
development of Australian law.
Advanced familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which shape the
development of Australian law.
Solidly competent familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which shape the
development of Australian law.
Basic competence in level of familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which
shape the development of Australian law.
Basic familiarity with the formal institutions and processes which shape the development
of Australian law.
The work somehow demonstrates a basic level of familiarity with the formal institutions
and processes which shape the development of Australian law, or that familiarity is
unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even a basic level of familiarity with the formal institutions
and processes which shape the development of Australian law, or that familiarity is very
unclear.
The work does not demonstrate any familiarity with the formal institutions and processes
which shape the development of Australian law.
80 / 100
Integrated analysis
Outstanding integration of the relevance of both the elements of the processes of judicial
law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative function of Australia’s
parliaments.
Excellent integration of the relevance of both the elements of the processes of judicial
law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative function of Australia’s
parliaments.
Advanced integration of the relevance of both the elements of the processes of judicial
law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative function of Australia’s
parliaments.
Solidly competent integration of the relevance of both the elements of the processes of
judicial law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative function of
Australia’s parliaments.
Basic competence in the integration of the relevance of both the elements of the
processes of judicial law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative
function of Australia’s parliaments.
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
REFERENCING (10%)
OUTSTANDING
(100)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
DISTINCTION
(80)
CREDIT
(70)
PASS
(60)
BASIC PASS
(50)
FAIL
(40)
MAJOR FAIL
(20)
NULL
(10)
Basic level integration of the relevance of both the elements of the processes of judicial
law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative function of Australia’s
parliaments.
The work somehow demonstrates basic level integration of the relevance of both the
elements of the processes of judicial law-making and the elements and structures of the
legislative function of Australia’s parliaments, or that application is unclear.
The work does not demonstrate even basic level integration of the relevance of both the
elements of the processes of judicial law-making and the elements and structures of the
legislative function of Australia’s parliaments, or that application is very unclear.
The work does not demonstrate any integration of the relevance of both the elements of
the processes of judicial law-making and the elements and structures of the legislative
function of Australia’s parliaments.
90 / 100
All referencing and related formatting requirements are met. The citation and referencing
are flawless.
Only very few minor errors are present in the referencing and related formatting
requirements. The citation and referencing contain only very few minor errors.
Only a few errors are present in the referencing and related formatting requirements. The
citation and referencing contain only a few errors.
Some errors are present in the referencing and related formatting requirements. The
citation and referencing contain some errors.
A number of errors are present in the referencing and related formatting requirements.
The citation and referencing contain a number of errors.
A good number of errors are present in the referencing and related formatting
requirements. The citation and referencing contain a good number of errors.
A significant number of errors are present in the referencing and related formatting
requirements. The citation & referencing contain a significant number of errors.
The Proposal is replete with referencing and related formatting errors. The citation and
referencing are replete with errors.
The Proposal does not comply with the referencing and related formatting requirements.
The Proposal does not comply with citation and referencing requirements.