Sample 2105AFE Introduction To Business Law Assignment

2105AFE Introduction To Business Law Assignment Sample

Weight: This assessment is worth 25% of the total marks for this course.

Due Date: This assessment must be submitted online via SafeAssign by 4.00 pm on Thursday, May 19, 2022.
Word Limit: Your answer to the Hypothetical ILAC Question must be no longer than 2000 words. There is a 10% allowance to account for any misunderstandings, so penalties will begin at 2201 words. Write clearly and concisely. Penalties apply to any answer which exceeds the maximum word limit and/or does not follow any of the instructions below.

HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION FOR ASSIGNMENT HELP

Victoria Jennings was severely injured in a car accident in 2015. As a result of her injuries, Victoria will become more disabled as she ages, and her health and mobility will deteriorate over time. Given her injuries, Victoria has a residual earning capacity of $500 a week and a working life which will end at 50 years in December of 2041. At the hearing of Victoria's personal injuries claim, she was awarded damages of $2.75 million, the bulk of which related to present and future medical and associated expenses of 1.7 million. Lacking any investment expertise or experience in receiving her damages award, Victoria engaged a financial planner, Bob Surething, to advise her on how to manage her present and future finances to ensure that she is able to pay her current and future medical expenses. Bob operated his financial advisory business through a company called Worthwhile Investments Pty Ltd (Worthwhile Investments).

On the basis of Bob's advice, Victoria invested $ 2 million in a share portfolio. The remaining $750,000 was spent on paying off the mortgage on Victoria's house and making home modifications to accommodate Victoria’s injuries. Initially, the share portfolio grew in value, with Bob Valuing Victoria's portfolio at 2.4 million in 2018. Victoria’s mother, Anita, was very interested in the value of Victoria’s share portfolio. Anita would regularly ask Victoria what shares Bob had recommended Victoria invest in. Anita would then buy the same shares in her name. Victoria requested on a fairly regular basis that Bob provide funds to her from her share portfolio so that Victoria could fund her own start-up businesses. Unfortunately, none of the start-ups was successful partly because of limitations caused by Victoria’s injuries.

By the end of 2020, Bob told Victoria the value of her share portfolio had dropped to $1.5 million, in part because of Victoria’s borrowings from her share portfolio to fund her failed start-ups and in part because of the continued decline in the value of shares held in Tourism and Accommodation companies in Victoria’s portfolio. In 2021 the value of the portfolio continued to decline. Victoria ended Bob’s appointment as her financial advisor in November 2021. In 2022, Victoria commenced proceedings against Worthwhile Investments, claiming that Bob Surething is liable for negligence. Victoria claims that Bob has breached his duty to her on two counts. Firstly, by not warning her against borrowing money from her share portfolio and investing in a number of failed start-up businesses. Secondly, by retaining shares in Tourism and Accommodation companies when Australia and the World were experiencing a COVID Pandemic, preventing domestic and international travel to a large extent.

Victoria's mother, Anita, has joined Victoria in claiming that Bob Surething is liable for negligence as Anita relied upon his advice in purchasing Tourism and Accommodation company shares and has suffered financial losses by doing so. Worthwhile Investments argue there is no duty owed by Bob to Victoria to oversee her spending and no duty owed by Bob to Anita as Bob was unaware that Victoria was sharing her personal investment plan with Anita.

Solution

Introduction

Tort law is a field of law that mainly deals with civil suits in a country. The main aim of the law is to redress an inappropriate act conducted against an individual to provide relief from the acts by providing adequate rewards to help the individual to deal with the monetary damages as compensation. Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD) is applicable to civil claims for damages that caused harm to individuals. This law includes breach of duty, the liability of public and other authorities, proportionate liability, and excluding the right to claim damages due to certain unethical behaviour.

Issue

The main issue that the assignment mainly deals with is "Victoria and Anita come to you for advice on whether each has a claim in negligence against Bob Surething". Additionally, the key issues are against Bob Surething.
Evaluation of the issue

In the year 2015, Victoria Jennings was involved in a car accident that left her in critical condition. As Vicky gets older, her injuries will become more severe, and she will also experience a decline in both her health and mobility. As a consequence of the injuries she sustained, Victoria's potential earnings are restricted to a maximum of $500 per week, and she will turn 50 years old in December of 2041. At the hearing of her personal injury claim, Victoria was awarded a total of $2.75 million in damages, the majority of which was for present and future medical expenses and other costs related to her condition, which totalled $1.7 million. After Victoria was awarded her damages, she immediately went out and hired a financial planner by the name of Bob Surething to provide her with guidance regarding how to best manage her current and future finances in order for her to be able to pay her current and future medical bills. Bob's financial advisory business was run through a company called Worthwhile Investments Pty Ltd, which was the company that Bob used (Worthwhile Investments).

Following Bob's recommendations, Victoria put $2 million of her wealth into an investment portfolio. With the remaining 750,000 dollars, Victoria was able to pay off her mortgage and make the necessary modifications to her house so that she could recover from her injuries in a more comfortable environment. Additionally, it has been observed that Every so often, Victoria asked Bob for money from her stock portfolio so she could start her own start-up ventures. Sadly, none of the start-ups was able to succeed in part because of Victoria's physical limitations.

Victoria's share portfolio was valued at $1.5 million by Bob at the end of the year 2020, in part because Victoria had borrowed money against her portfolio to fund failed start-ups and in part because the value of Victoria's stock holdings in tourism and accommodation companies had continued to decline over the previous year. In 2021 the value of the portfolio continued to decline. Victoria ended Bob's appointment as her financial advisor in November 2021.

In the year 2022, Victoria filed a lawsuit against Worthwhile Investments, alleging that Bob Surething was negligent in his handling of the company's affairs. Victoria claims that Bob has breached his duty to her on two counts. Firstly, by not warning her against borrowing money from her share portfolio and investing in a number of failed start-up businesses. Secondly, by retaining shares in tourism and lodging companies during the COVID Pandemic, which severely restricted domestic and international travel, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. Victoria's mother, Anita, has joined Victoria in claiming that Bob Surething is liable for negligence as Anita relied upon his advice in purchasing Tourism and Accommodation company shares and has suffered financial losses by doing so.

Rule

Duty of Care:

An occupier owes a duty of care to protect visitors to their property from reasonably foreseeable harm or injury (Australian Safeway).

An occupier is:

• A person who has physical control of a location;

• A person in charge of maintaining the condition of a building, the activities that take place there, or the people who are permitted to enter the building.

Breach of Duty:

Section 9(1) of the CLA states that a person does not breach a duty to protect themselves from harm unless they fail to do so.

• Risks that could have been reasonably anticipated were present; therefore, the person should have known or had reason to believe that the risk existed.

• It was not a trivial risk; and

• A reasonable person would have taken precautions in the same situation.

Section 9(2) CLA: The court must consider the following (among other relevant factors) when determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm:

• Risk of harm if proper precautions are not taken (Bolton).

• damage (Paris) and its likely severity

• The burden of avoiding harm by taking precautionary measures (Woods).

Causation and Scope of Liability

As required by CLA s11 (1), the claimant must demonstrate the following:

• The breach of duty had to have occurred ("factual causation").

• It is appropriate to include the harm caused by the person who violated the scope of the person's liability.

As required by CLA s11 (1), the claimant must demonstrate the following:

• The breach of duty had to have occurred ("factual causation").

• It is appropriate to include the harm caused by the person who violated the scope of the person's liability.

Analysis

As a "civil wrong," a tort protects a wide range of interests, including those of the occupants of the Earth and those of the rest of humanity, and is distinct from both criminal law and contract law. Rehabilitating an individual who has been hurt in an accident is the goal of this type of legal action.

In Australian tort law, unless the claimant can prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care and that that duty was breached, they cannot be held liable for negligence. If the defendant's conduct fell short of the expected standard in the given circumstances, they have breached their duty to the claimant.

1. There are three tests for causation in Australian law: remoteness, causation, and foreseeability. Australian criminal law and Australian contract law both make use of this concept. A claimant's damages and losses are directly linked to the defendant's negligence if causation is established. It's reasonable to hold the defendant responsible for the claimant's losses and damages if the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant that resulted in those losses and damages. In Australian tort law, unless the claimant can prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care and that that duty was breached, they cannot be held liable for negligence. If the defendant's conduct fell short of the expected standard in the given circumstances, they have breached their duty to the claimant.

2. There are three tests for causation in Australian law: remoteness, causation, and foreseeability. Australian criminal law and Australian contract law both make use of this concept. A claimant's damages and losses are directly linked to the defendant's negligence if causation is established. It's reasonable to hold the defendant responsible for the claimant's losses and damages if the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant that resulted in those losses and damages.

In 2002, Congress passed the Civil Liability Act, which gives people who have been hurt the legal right to sue in civil court for monetary damages. The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (Civil Liability Act) governs claims for personal injuries and lists the requirements for bringing a negligence action as well as possible defences. In Queensland, the Civil Liability Act is in place. In its most basic form, the Civil Liability Act QLD applies to any civil claim for damages for the harm that can be made. Notice that a "claim" is a request for compensation based on liability for property damage, economic loss, or personal injury. This definition can be found in the "claim" definition. The Act says that the word "harm" includes all possible types of loss, such as damage to property, loss of income, or personal injury. In the meantime, the word "harm" is defined so that it includes all of these types of loss.

The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ("the CL Act") went into effect on April 9, 2003, after the Bill that would become it was approved by the Governor in Council. Even though that date had passed, many of the parts of that act1 worked backwards in cases where the "breach of duty" happened on or after December 2002. Not all of the provisions, though, were like this. There are a lot of clauses about who is responsible, a clause about how to figure out general damages, and a clause about how to explain economic awards. No matter what happened, some rules were made to apply to the past. "An Act to amend the law of civil liability for negligent acts, and for other purposes" is the full name of the Civil Liability Act. This phrase is part of the long name of the act. With the exception of Section 5, which does not apply in this case, the Act applies to "any civil claim for damages for harm." Because the Act's definitions of "claim," "damages," and "harm" are so broad, many of its rules apply to situations other than claims for damages for physical injury or death that are directly caused by negligence.

Victoria filed a case against Worthwhile Investments based on negligence that deliberately harmed her portfolio and resulted in causing her massive losses. Anita also joined her in the whole litigation procedure. Other than the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), the Tort of negligence also plays a very major role in this case. In the context of civil law, a tort is an unlawful act or omission that gives rise to a lawsuit against the perpetrator. In the legal sense, a tort is a wrongdoing for which a civil action can be brought against the party responsible in a court of law. As can see in our modern world, a variety of torts are recognised by courts, some of which date back to the mediaeval era. As most torts have common elements, they must show that the elements of negligence were violated in order to establish that a negligent misstatement occurred.

There must be evidence demonstrating that the wrongful act was undertaken either knowingly or negligently by one of the parties. The plaintiff would bear the burden of proving that the tortfeasor's actions caused them actual harm/injury/loss. The Court must determine that the defendant's conduct was responsible for the plaintiff's loss or injury in order to properly compensate the victim. After determining that there was a duty of care between the parties and that duty was breached, the Court will look at the resulting loss/injury and its connection to the standard of care breached by the defendant. In order to determine if Victoria's negligence claim is valid, it must first look at the characteristics of a typical negligence claim and then look at the presence of an unusual relationship.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is highly likely that Victoria has suitable grounds to make a claim under the Tort of negligence. This is because the criteria for making such a claim currently exist, such as the existence of a duty of care, breach of the standard of care, the actual loss incurred, and the existence of a special relationship. Furthermore, it is highly likely that Victoria has suitable grounds to make a claim under the Tort of negligent behaviour. This is because Victoria indulged Bob while the transaction was carried out regarding the funds that were being allocated to the start-ups. Bob happens to be an employee of Worthwhile Investments, and since the communication took place transparently, the issue related to tort of negligence does not apply completely in this case.

References

Murray, C. K. (2021). The Australian housing supply myth. Australian Planner, 57(1), 1-12. Available at: https://files.au-1.osf.io/v1/resources/r925z/providers/osfstorage/5ddb5b09fbde360009912184?action=download&direct&version=2

Ralston, B. (2020). Does payroll tax affect firm behaviour? Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 39(1), 15-27. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/210399/1/twp-2018-02.pdf

Scott, J. (2019). Taxation of Life Insurance Policyholders in Australia and Eight Proposals for Taxation Law Reform (Doctoral dissertation, UNSW Sydney). Available at: http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/bitstreams/4dad3b8b-ad41-49f1-a19d-2da7426ce172/download

Scott, S., Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I., & Kraus, S. (2019). Technology adoption factors in the digitisation of popular culture: Analysing the online gambling market. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119717. Available at: https://dro.dur.ac.uk/28975/1/28975.pdf