CLWM4000 Business and Corporations Law Assessment 2: Case Study Analysis

Assessment Details

Assessment Type: Individual Written Report – Case Study Analysis

Word Count: 1500 words (+/- 10%)

Weighting: 30%

Total Marks: 30

Submission: Via Turnitin in Word format (PDF not accepted)

Due Date: Week 10, Monday at 11:55 pm

Task Overview

Analyse the provided case scenario using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion). Address two questions on contract law and Australian Consumer Law. Support arguments with statutory provisions from relevant legislation and case law. Submissions exceeding the word limit by more than 10% cease marking beyond that point.

Case Scenario

Karla runs an Italian restaurant in Victoria and promotes a new “gluten free pasta” range via a large window sign claiming it as “the best pasta in town, made with all fresh ingredients”. Tom, a regular customer, takes his wife Julie (who is gluten intolerant) to the restaurant. Julie orders Ravioli after staff confirm all pasta is gluten free. The new staff member was mistaken; Ravioli contains gluten. Julie suffers an allergic reaction requiring hospital treatment and loses two days’ income ($500) as a sole trader without sick leave benefits. Advise on Karla’s potential liability under contract law and consumer law for the staff’s representation.

Question 1 (10 Marks – approximately 750 words)

Explain the meaning of a contract and the elements required for a valid simple contract. Address essential elements (offer and acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration) and vitiating factors (capacity, legality of object, genuine consent including mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, unconscionability). Determine if a valid contract existed between Julie and Karla. Advise on remedies and limitations available to Julie under contract law. Support with statutory provisions and relevant cases.

Question 2 (10 Marks – approximately 750 words)

Advise Julie whether Karla breached Australian Consumer Law guarantees under Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Explain the relevant ACL consumer guarantees. Justify availability with statutory provisions. Outline remedies for Julie and penalties applicable to Karla for breaches. Support with statutory provisions and relevant cases.

Assessment Instructions

• Use IRAC structure for analysis.
• Refer to the marking guide for criteria on content, legal reasoning, structure, and referencing.
• Cite sources correctly (likely AGLC or Harvard; confirm subject outline).
• Focus on objective, reasoned arguments with clear integration of principles.

Marking Criteria Summary

Each question assessed on:

• Understanding and application of legal principles
• Coherent argument and structure
• Use of case law, statutes, and referencing quality
• Clarity, expression, and organisation

Scale: Fail (5-7), Pass (7.5-9.5), Credit (10-11), Distinction (11.5-13.5), High Distinction (14-15) per question (total /30).

Sample Notes for Guidance

Julie entered a contract with Karla when she ordered and accepted the Ravioli dish after staff confirmed its gluten-free status. Essential elements exist through offer (menu and sign promotion), acceptance (order), intention (commercial restaurant transaction), and consideration (payment for food). However, misrepresentation vitiates genuine consent as staff negligently stated the pasta was gluten free, inducing Julie to purchase. This constitutes innocent or negligent misrepresentation under common law principles. Remedies include rescission and damages for losses such as medical costs and $500 income. Under ACL, Karla breached consumer guarantees of acceptable quality (s 54) and fitness for purpose (s 55) since the food caused harm due to undisclosed gluten. Julie qualifies as a consumer for personal use. Remedies encompass repair/replacement/refund, compensation for consequential loss, and potential penalties for Karla up to substantial amounts for corporations. Accurate advice requires precise application to facts (Paterson and Robertson, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117100). Restaurant owners remain vicariously liable for staff misstatements in trade or commerce. These breaches highlight the importance of staff training in allergy disclosures to avoid civil and regulatory consequences.

References

1. Paterson, J. and Robertson, A., 2020. Principles of contract law. 6th edn. Thomson Reuters. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117100
2. Corones, S.G., 2019. Competition law in Australia. 7th edn. Thomson Reuters. https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/en/products-services/books/competition-law-in-australia.html
3. Miller, R.V., 2022. Miller’s Australian competition and consumer law. Thomson Reuters. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/millers-australian-competition-and-consumer-law/productdetail/127474
4. McNaughton, A., 2021. Misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. Australian Business Law Review, 49(3), pp.215-230. https://www.westlaw.com.au
5. Foster, N., 2018. Misrepresentation and the Australian Consumer Law. Journal of Contract Law, 32(1), pp.45-67. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jconlaw32

The post Case Study Analysis Julie Gluten Free Pasta Karla Restaurant Contract ACL Breach appeared first on EssayBishops.