PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

ATTENDANCE: There are 2 Groups. Each student is to attend the classes scheduled for each group (either 18 Dec and 22 Jan or 19 Dec and 23 Jan). Attendance on both days for each group is compulsory and students who miss more than 2 hours of scheduled class time that relate to the Lectures will be excluded from the unit and will receive an F grade (see Unit Schedule below). The sessions are designed to assist students in completing the set written assignments. The time will be used to work on hypothetical problems, to discuss/clarify each topic and to allow students to ask questions about the assignments. In the event that students cannot attend the required number of hours, they must comply with the "Disruptions to Studies" policy. In these cases students should contact the unit convenor immediately and alternative arrangements may be made.

NB Arrangements have been made to allow students with a clash in classes in Animal Law on 23 Jan to come to class immediately after their Animal Law presentation. These students do not have to complete a 'disruption application', but should contact the convenor of each unit if they haven't already done so.

Assignment 1: Hypothetical Problem Solving based on Torts (Lectures 2-3)

Released to Students: Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:00am on iLearn

Due Date: Wednesday, 24 December 2014, 12:00pm via Turnitin

Mark: 20% of total

Word Length: 1500 words MAX (excluding footnotes). No Bibliography required.

Assignment 2: Hypothetical Problem Solving based on Contracts, Equity, Restitution (Lectures 4-7)

Released to Students: Monday, 5 January, 9:00am on iLearn

Due Date: Friday, 9 January, 12:00pm via Turnitin

Mark: 40% of total

Word Length: 2000 words MAX (excluding footnotes). No Bibliography required.

Assignment 3: Research Essay on Topics in Lectures 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Released to Students: Wednesday, 17 December, 9:00am on iLearn

Due Date: Friday, 30 January, 12:00pm via Turnitin

Mark: 40% of total

Word Length: 2500 words MAX (excluding footnotes and bibliography). Footnotes and Bibliography required.

General Instructions for Assignments 1, 2 and 3. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

The word lengths for all assignments will be strictly applied. Any assignment exceeding the word length will have marks deducted at the discretion of the marker.

Referencing for all assignments must comply with the current version of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Assignments that do not comply will have marks deducted at the discretion of the marker.

All assignments must be typed in 12pt Times New Roman, double spaced with margins of not less than 2.5cm on both sides. Assignments that do not comply will have marks deducted at the discretion of the marker.

The Footnotes for all assignments should be in 10pt Times New Roman.

The Bibliography for Assignment 3 should be single spaced in 12pt Times New Roman with a single space in between each reference.

All assignments are to be submitted via Turnitin on the iLearn page on or before the due date. Late submissions will not be marked and in the absence of a successful claim of "Disruption to Studies" will be given a grade of zero. Applications for Disruption to Studies must be made before the due date.

Marks will also be available on iLearn.  

MARKING GUIDES AND RUBRICS FOR ALL ASSIGNMENTS

MARKING GUIDE ASSIGNMENTS 1 & 2: Hypothetical Problem Solving

General instructions for ALL hypotheticals

HIRAC: Apply the HIRAC rule: Heading; Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Correct hypothetical technique requires you to identify the parties and the legal issues that arise between them, state the rule or principle of law which applies, identify the appropriate authorities, including competing authorities (cases, legislation ie primary sources only), determine which legal principles apply to your fact situation, consider policy considerations, and reach a reasoned and well argued conclusion on the likely outcome of the actions. Your ability to correctly identify the legal issues, your reasoning process, and ability to clearly and concisely state and apply correct legal principles, are more important than the conclusion you arrive at, since hypothetical problems are generally deliberately drafted to allow different views to be argued. But you need to state a conclusion for each hypothetical problem.

Hypotheticals MUST always be organised under headings. These headings will usually be the names of the parties to each action, in italics, with the plaintiff first eg Jones v Smith etc, and you may find it useful to group related actions together under sub headings such as cause of action, type of remedy, or major issue. This is a matter of judgment depending on the individual hypothetical. Do not use Issue, Rule etc as your headings. Set out the law once, and apply it to the various actions. Where you have insufficient facts or the facts are left open on a particular point, you must make sensible assumptions drawn from the facts, state what they are, and advise accordingly. Where more than one assumption is open, you need to consider both. You must refer to relevant case law and legislation. Assume all facts occur in New South Wales in 2014.

RUBRICS ASSIGNMENTS 1 AND 2: Hypothetical Problem Solving

Excellent

An excellent answer will be structured according to HIRAC and will apply that approach to each cause of action arising from the fact scenario. To that end, an excellent answer will identify all the relevant parties who have action/s in the claim/s and will identify the parties against whom action/s can be brought. For each claim of a party, the answer will identify all the relevant legal issues arising from the fact scenario that could attract a remedy. For each claim, the answer will identify all the relevant legal principles that could apply in resolving the legal issues. For each claim, the answer will determine which of the principles identified would apply and will give clear reasons why those principles would apply to the fact situation. For each claim, the answer will identify the relevant policy considerations that could affect the remedial outcome. For each claim, the answer will clearly state what will be the probable outcome. Overall the answer will be coherently structured, written clearly using full sentences, correct grammar, spelling and written expression. Footnotes will be in the correct AGLC format and the answer will be within the stated word length.

Good

A good answer has made a good attempt at applying HIRAC, but not systematically with respect to all causes of actions arising from the fact scenario. To that end, a good answer will identify almost all the relevant parties who have action/s in the claim/s and will identify almost all of the parties against whom action/s can be brought. However, for each claim identified, the answer may not identify all the relevant legal issues arising from the fact scenario that could attract a legal remedy and may have misconceived some of these. For each claim identified, the answer may not have identified all the relevant legal principles that could apply in resolving the legal issues and may have misconceived some of these. For each claim identified, the answer may not clearly determine which of the principles identified would apply and may not give clear reasons why they would apply to the fact situation. The reasoning could be slightly misconceived. For each claim identified, the answer may not identify all of the relevant policy considerations that could affect the remedial outcome and may misconceive some of them. For each claim identified, the answer may not clearly state what will be the probable outcome. Overall the answer may not be as coherently structured as it could be, it may not be entirely written using full sentences, correct grammar, spelling and written expression. Footnotes may not be entirely in the correct AGLC format and the answer may not entirely be within the stated word length.

Satisfactory

A satisfactory answer has attempted to apply HIRAC, but not in a very systematic way with respect to the causes of actions arising from the fact scenario. To that end, a satisfactory answer will identify most of the relevant parties who have action/s in the claim/s and will identify most of the parties against whom action/s can be brought. However, for each claim identified, the answer may not identify many of the relevant legal issues arising from the fact scenario that could attract a legal remedy and may have misconceived many of these. For each claim identified, the answer may not have identified many of the relevant legal principles that could apply in resolving the legal issues and may have misconceived many of these. For each claim identified, the answer may not clearly determine which principles would apply and may not give clear reasons why they should apply in the fact situation. The reasoning could be misconceived and difficult to understand. For each claim identified, the answer may not identify many of the relevant policy considerations that could affect the remedial outcome and may misconceive many of them. For each claim identified, the answer may not clearly state what will be the probable outcome. Overall the answer is not coherently structured, it is not written mainly using full sentences, correct grammar, spelling and written expression. Footnotes are not in the correct AGLC format and the answer is not within the stated word length.

Unsatisfactory

An unsatisfactory answer has made little attempt to apply HIRAC, and where it has the approach is not very systematic with respect to the causes of actions arising from the fact scenario. To that end, an unsatisfactory answer will identify only some of the relevant parties who have action/s in the claim/s and will identify only some of the parties against whom action/s can be brought. However, for each claim identified, the answer may only identify some of the relevant legal issues arising from the fact scenario that could attract a legal remedy and may have misconceived most of these. For each claim identified, the answer may only have identified some of the relevant legal principles that could apply in resolving the legal issues and may have misconceived most of these. For each claim identified, the answer may miss determining which principles would apply and/or does not give clear reasons why they should apply in the fact situation. The reasoning is very misconceived and very difficult to understand. For each claim identified, the answer fails to identify many of the relevant policy considerations that could affect the remedial outcome and may misconceive most of them. For each claim identified, the answer may not state what will be the probable outcome. Overall the answer is incoherently structured, it is not written using full sentences, correct grammar, spelling and written expression. Footnotes are not in the correct AGLC format and the answer is not within the stated word length.

MARKING GUIDE ASSIGNMENT 3: Research Essay

ASSIGNMENT 3: Rubrics for Essay

Excellent

An excellent essay is well-structured with an introduction setting out briefly what will be discussed in the paper (the issues to be discussed), including a summary of the basic argument and conclusion. The argument is developed in the main body of the essay and relates directly to the essay topic in response to the essay question. The argument is well-structured using headings. The student has understood, identified and discussed the main issues under each heading. The argument is coherent and demonstrates that the student has thought about and critically analysed the issues raised by the essay topic. The development of the argument synthesizes the student’s independent research and the student’s own views which can include references to the unit materials. The essay is written in language that is easy for the reader to understand and follow. The essay has a conclusion where the student summarises the argument in the essay, the main research findings, and considers possible areas for reform in the area. The student uses a consistent style in relation to footnotes and bibliography. The essay stays within the prescribed length.

Good

A good essay is structured using the same format described above: introduction; main body of the essay (separated by headings), conclusion, but a more loose approach to structure has been adopted (eg – no separate introduction or conclusion). The student has understood and identified many of the main issues relevant to the essay topic, however, the discussion of the issues and the development of the argument may not always be coherent or clear and sometimes there may be misunderstanding of the issues. The student may rely too much on the unit reading materials at the expense of expressing their own views or researching further into the topic. Conversely, the student may rely too much on their own views and not refer sufficiently to the work of others in order to develop a convincing argument. The student will demonstrate they have thought about the essay topic, but the student may pursue irrelevant issues. The student will have tried to answer the essay question, but written expression may sometimes get in the way of the reader fully understanding what the student is trying to say. The student uses a consistent style in relation to footnotes and bibliography. The essay stays within the prescribed length.

Satisfactory

A satisfactory essay is loosely structured (eg – no separate introduction or conclusion and no use of headings). The student has a basic understanding of the issues that the essay topic is raising and has identified some of the issues relevant to the essay topic, though not all of the content of the essay is relevant to the essay topic and some of the discussion of the issues is misconceived. The student has thought about the issues raised by the essay topic, but the approach may be too superficial and descriptive. Often the argument is based on mere assertion, rather than based on the unit reading materials or on independent research. The student will have thought about the essay topic and tried to answer the question, but the written expression is not coherent or clear, often making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument. The student approach to footnotes and bibliography is not consistent. The essay may not be within the prescribed length – is either too long or too short.

Unsatisfactory

An unsatisfactory essay demonstrates that the student has not understood the essay topic and much of the discussion in the paper is based on misconceived ideas. The student may have identified some of the main issues, but the discussion pursues too many irrelevant issues. The argument is mostly based on mere assertion. Very little references have been made to the work of other people. The student’s written expression is poor and the argument difficult, if not impossible, to follow. The argument does not follow any coherent structure at all. The student has not adopted a consistent approach to footnotes, or has not included footnotes at all. There is no bibliography, or the bibliography is poorly set out.

You will find all resources and required reading list in the online unit available at ilearn.mq.edu.au.

Students will also be required to use a computer to interact with online research databases and web-based research tools.

The Lectures are pre-recorded from Law 555 S1 2014. The order of the lectures has been changed for S3. The lecture for Alternative Dispute Resolution was Lecture 2 and now is Lecture 8. The sequence of the other lectures has been adjusted accordingly.