TLAW 607 Business and Corporations Law
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION SEMESTER 3, 2020: CONTRACT LAW (ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS)
Total Marks: 30
Due Date: (Week 8) Monday 18 January 2021 by 5.00 pm [Turnitin at Moodle]
Word Limit: Minimum 2,700 words – Maximum 3,000 words [includes all references =
footnotes and bibliography]
QUESTION 1 [30 marks]
Axel Wong is an ambitious fashion designer whose aim is to design his own clothes and sell
them through a retail store owned by him. Axel decided to look for suitable premises from
which to sell his range of clothing designer goods. However, since he knew he would not be
able to finance his entire business, he asked his father for help.
Axel’s father, who owned many commercial properties, agreed to lease one of his shops to
Axel at half the rental he would normally charge. Axel inspected the premises. It looked like
an old factory. Axel told his father that he would like to make some alterations to the layout
of the shop so as ‘give the clothing shop a modern and trendy look.’
Axel told his father that he wanted to start on the renovations immediately and would speak to
the local Council in Burwood, Sydney to get the necessary permits. Axel also agreed that he
will pay for these store renovations which, after quotes had been given, were calculated at
$50,000. Axel, however, said to his father that he did not want to start on the renovation project
unless his father was certain that the shop was available for rent at the amount agreed.
Axel’s father said he would let Axel know in the next few days if he changed his mind about
renting the shop to him. Axel also said to his father that the opening of the shop on the date
agreed in the lease was important to him to ensure success in the business. It was estimated
that the renovations to the shop would take 3 months, by which time Axel would have designed
and created the required shop stock for sales.
A week after Axel reached an agreement to sign the lease with his father, Axel started on the
shop renovation project, having heard nothing from his father. A month after the renovation
work began, Axel noticed his father drive past very slow past the shop in which the renovations
were in progress.
Axel received a phone call from this father, two months later, who said he received a higher
rental for the same shop and therefore will not be signing the lease agreement with Axel. Axel
threatened to sue his father for breach of contract. His father replied “we are family. I love
you. You can’t sue me. Besides, I have not signed the lease agreement and so the law is on my
side. Bad luck, son.”
By this time, Axel had already spent $50, 000 on renovating the shop to suit his business needs.
Advise Axel as to his legal rights with reference to relevant principles of contract law. Give
reasons for your answer based on contract law (common law legal principles and relevant
End of Question.
IMPORTANT – Submission Procedure:
1. Assignment Cover Sheet must be submitted with student name and signature and with
2. Plus Copy of assignment to be lodged at turnitin at Moodle
Maximum number of submissions: 2 but with first submission at least
24 hours before due date and time
3. Late submission will attract penalty (mark deduction of 5 % for each day late)
Most Important: Plagiarism, which includes contract cheating, is a serious academic offence and
can result in failure of this course. Students are expected to submit answers based on individual
effort (this is not a group project).
4. No other method of submission is allowed. NOTE: Email attachments sent to
lecturer OR papers sent by post will NOT be accepted.
Requirements for a pass/good mark:
1. A legal analysis of the question with reference to relevant legal principles (case law).
2. Students are expected, as a minimum requirement, to reference the relevant chapters
in the prescribed textbook and to draw supporting information from there in support of
3. You are generally advised not to use the internet for resource materials, especially if
you are unfamiliar with the topic (as it may be unnecessary and you run the real risk of
drawing on irrelevant information or legal information from other countries that are
irrelevant to Australian law). Your prescribed textbook, and the references therein, is
more than adequate to answer the question.
4. With those cautionary remarks in mind, only use internet sources that are relevant,
accurate and reliable – remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable/credible source of
academic information and is not to be trusted.
5. Students are expected to footnote references to case law 1 and to provide a
bibliography of books2 and journal articles3 consulted [See SAMPLE footnoted below]
. DO NOT USE HAVARD SYSTEM (in text) referencing.
6. Marks will be deducted if the answer does not meet the minimum word count – a word count
must be indicated on the cover sheet.
7. Use of margin of 1.5 and font of 12 (Times New Roman] – with answers on single side of
8. A good answer will do the following (adopt the following structure) with respect to the
(a) Identify the material (relevant) facts – and NOT simply repeat the question;
(b) Identify the legal issue (or issues);
(c) Identify the relevant case law;
(d) Apply the legal principles and case law to the given facts;
(e) Offer reasons for your conclusion (must be supported by legal authority) – a simple
Yes or No answer with personal views is inadequate);
(f) Be proof-read to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors;
(g) Be referenced, with a bibliography;
(h) Meet the minimum word length requirement;
(i) Not simply copy/reproduce the textbook (answer must show own understanding);
(j) No plagiarism.
(k) Late submission – it is TOP policy that assignments cannot be submitted late
without prior approval of the unit coordinator and only in extenuating circumstances
supported by evidence. Assignments submitted late without prior approval will not
1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  EWCA 1 (hereinafter Carbolic case) discussed in Latimer P, Australian
Business Law (35th ed, Oxford, 2016) p 304.
2 Latimer P, Australian Business Law (35th ed, Oxford, 2016).
3 Campbell J, ‘Waltons v Maher: History, Unconscientiousness and Remedy – the “minimum equity” ‘ (2013) 7
Journal of Equity 171 at 175.