LAWS 11030 INTRODUCTORY AND CONTRACT LAW

LAWS 11030 Introductory and Contract Law
Term 3 2015
Written Assessment (40 %)
Due: 7 January 2016 by 11:45 pm (Thursday, Week 7)
Please clink on this link
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/19.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(sidhu%20and%20Van%20Dyke%20)
PART A 20 marks
Answer all of the following questions relating to the case below:
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19
You are only required to read the majority judgment from paragraphs [1] to [88].
• There is no need to write out the questions.
• Your answers should be clearly numbered e.g. question one.
• You are to answer the questions in your own words.
• It is envisaged that your word count for Part A would be between 500-600 words.
• As a general rule, if you exceed the word limit by 10%, it is acceptable.
• No referencing is expected for Part A, i.e. you are not required to quote the paragraphs from which your responses were drawn from.
• The marks given for each question will be a good guide as to the quantum of words required.

1. In which court was the case heard? In your answer, you need to identify the full name of the court and the jurisdiction that the court is exercising. 1 mark
The following question relates to information found in [3]-[22]:
2. Outline the facts of this case. 2 marks
The following question relates to information found in [45]-[46]:
3. Identify the legal issues to be determined in the present case [2014] HCA 19. 2 marks
The following question relates to information found in [23] to [33]:
4. List the reasons why the trial judge in the Supreme Court of NSW found against the plaintiff. 2 marks

The following question relates to information found in [34] to [43]:
5. The judges in the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal relied on the “presumption of reliance” doctrine to find in favour of the female respondent. Quote one of the cases that were used by the judges in relation to this doctrine and discuss under the doctrine of precedent whether this case is binding on the judges. 2 marks
The following question relates to information found in [44] to [61]:
6. The Court in [2014] HCA 19 rejected the doctrine of presumption of reliance. Explain why the Court in [2014] HCA 19 rejected this doctrine and what is the Australian position on legal onus of proof in the case of an assertion for promissory estoppel. 2 marks
The following question relates to information found in [68] to [75]:
7. List the reasons why the court found in favour of the female respondent. 4 marks
The following question relates to information found in [79] to [84]:
8. Discuss the rationale, with the support of the most recent High Court case cited, behind providing relief for an action in promissory estoppel. 2 marks
The following question relates to information found in [85]:
9. What was the relief granted by the court in [2014} HCA 19? 1 mark
The following question relates to information found in [86] and also requires you to have a broad understanding of the facts of the case:
10. The High Court held that the appellants promise to gift the property to the respondent should be upheld, but for equitable reasons the Court did not make an order for transfer of the property. What were those reasons? 2 marks

PART B 20 marks
• Part B has no relevance to the case of Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19
• As a general rule, if you exceed the word limit by 10%, it is acceptable.
• Referencing (Harvard or legal footnoting) is required for Part B.
• An assignment guide for Part B is available on Moodle under Assessment Block. Please refer to this assignment guide to assist you in this essay and problem based question.
Question One 15 marks
The Australian Constitution, being a living document, is the bedrock on which Australia is governed.
Discuss, in the form of an essay, the above statement and support your answer with cases or recent events from newspaper articles.

(900 words)

Question Two 5 marks
Bob agrees to build a brick garage for Johnny for $10000. Due to an unexpected early arrival of his prized motor vehicle from overseas, Johnny is urging Bob to complete the garage earlier so that he could lock up his beloved motor vehicle in a secure place. Bob agrees to finishing off the garage earlier if Johnny agrees to pay him an extra $1 000. Bob has now completed the garage but Johnny refuses to pay the extra $1000.
Advise Bob.
You are expected to identify the legal issue(s), demonstrate your understanding of the contract law concepts, cite the law and case(s)to support your argument and make an informed decision applying the relevant law.
(300 words)