× Limited Time Offer ! FLAT 20-40% off - Grab Deal Before It’s Gone. Order Now
Connect With Us
Order Now

HI6027 Business and Corporate Law Assignment Sample

Assignment Brief

Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)

The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case.

In this Group Assignments, Students are Required To:

- Critically analyses the main features of the Australian Legal System and the foundations of company law. (ULO 1)

- Critically analyses the basic principles of Contract, Tort, and privacy law and apply them in resolving legal issues arising in commercial transactions. (ULO 2)

- Research and advocate the appropriateness of the different types of business structures and the legal environment in which they operate and their advantages and disadvantages in various commercial contexts. (ULO 4)

Weight 40% - of the total assessments
Total Marks - 40%
Word limit Group Written Report of maximum 1,000 words
Due Date - Week 10

Submission Guidelines

? All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
? The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
? Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using the Adapted Harvard Referencing style.

Assignment Questions

Part A: Contracts Law Question (20 marks)

- Read the Contracts Law question below for assignment help

- In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer your chosen question using the IRAC method.

- Your answer must be supported by relevant Australian law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 6 genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.

- The full citations for all sources cited in your answer must be listed in a Reference list at the end of your report.

- In addition, any online sources cited in your answer and listed in your Reference List must include a valid hyperlink that allows access to the full text of the source.

Sierra Foxtrot Airport called for tenders for supplies of green seed for its runway surrounds, with a
closing date of 1 June.

The following tenders were submitted:

- Green Grow hand-delivered its tender on 29 May, which went into the tender box.

- Sow This! posted its tender on 15 May. This letter was received by Sierra Foxtrot on 17 May, by being submitted so early, one of the administrative assistants filed it with the intention of, later putting it in the box when she was properly organized.

- Grassy Plains posted its tender on 30 May. This letter arrived on 2 June but nevertheless
was put into the tender box.

It transpired that only two of the tenders were considered by the relevant Sierra Foxtrot officers. The administrative assistant forgot where she had filed the Sow This! tender and did not find it again until a week after the decision was made. The tender by Sow This! was actually the lowest and contained the most attractive features.

Green Grow’s tender was the next lowest, but Sierra Foxtrot had heard rumors about its unreliability. The airport, therefore, awarded the contract to Grassy Plains. Sierra Foxtrot posted a letter to Grassy Plains advising that its tender was successful. Unfortunately, this letter never reached Grassy Plains because it was destroyed by a disgruntled postal worker who had just been made redundant. Since it had not heard from Sierra Foxtrot, Grassy Plains instead committed its full stock of seed to another contract with a regional council.

Sierra Foxtrot became aware of the full situation concerning the tender by Sow This! and the position in which Grassy Plains now finds itself. It seeks advice concerning its contractual position in relation to all three tenders. Advise Sierra Foxtrot with reference to legal principles and rules taught on contract law.




In the given case scenario, the issues are mainly concerned with contract law. In this, Sierra Foxtrot Airport has called for tenders for supply of seeds with the end date of 1st June. Three companies have submitted tenders, namely Green Grow, Sow This, and Grassy Plains. It is required to give advice to Airport in the context of all three tenders.

Rules and Regulations

A contract legally binds two parties; agreement is the most needed aspect to create a legal contract. A contract is created when the process of offer and acceptance is made, by communication between the parties who wants to enter in it (Harold, et al. 2016, p. 205(2)). In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, English Court of Appeal place give more focus on the business activities effect that an activity is classified as an offer in this situation. Offer must be distinct from the invitation to treat. The mere listing of price in and advertisement or on the product is not classified as an offer instead it is the invitation to customers to make an offer. Thus any statement or conduct classified as invitation to deal by the court must not be considered as an offer, if considered so it would be commercially inconvenient process. Invitation to tender also consist of offer within it (Pavlovich 2020, p. 448(1)) which might get rejected or accepted, hence it could also be said as invitation to deal. In the legal case of Blackpool&Flyde Invite for deal is invite for tender as under this situation offer has to be considered and opened for the tenders, accepted for the tender submission (Australian Contract Law 2019). Notably, the invitation to tender must also have separate offer along with it for the consideration of all the tenders submitted.

As communication is an important aspect of a contract, without this the contract cannot be created. The process of offer and acceptance create a contract so, when the offer is being communicated by the offeror to the offeree, and through the means of communication the offeree accepts the offer and the acceptance reaches to the mind of the offeror, creates a valid contract, which legally binds both parties under the agreed contract which was communicated between them (Ahmed 2018, p. 502(1)). The acceptance rule of postal, founded in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 is an exception rule related to the communication, that when the acceptance of offer reaches to the mind of the offeror it is considered to be an efficient communication. According to this rule when the mode of communication is nominated by the offeror, say by post it is been nominated, so when the acceptance letter is posted by the offeree, but not to be considered at some another date when the offeror received the acceptance, is considered as an effective acceptance. As the acceptance is expected to be posted so the offer will be formed at the time and place when the acceptance would be posted according to the legal rule of postal acceptance. This rule will only be applicable or applied if the offeror receive the acceptance until that it is not intended by offeree to enter into legal contract. If acceptance is not received the rule will not be applied and the contract will not be formed (Tucker 2020, p. 2365(1)).

The postal rule of acceptance is being highlighted in Australia more than in any other common law authority. As per the case of Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan’s Merchandise (1957) Dixon CJ and Fullagar J states, as per usual norm contract is not created until the letter of acceptance is received or being communicated to the offeror from the offeree. The contract is not created until it is being concluded that the offeror has examined that his offer would be accepted by this act and it could not be justified by the completion of the posting of acceptance letter (Postal Acceptance Rule 2021).


Usually, invitation to tender is not considered as offer obliging the principal to accept the minimum or any tender, as it is generally the only invitation to negotiate with the individual who respond to the invitation and not considered as offer to build a contract with the lowest tender or with any other. In the given case scenario, Airport is not bound to accept the offer of the minimum tender; therefore, they could choose to make contract with anyone. In the context of Green Grow, it has been noticed that, Airport had perceived rumors with respect to unreliability and therefore they do not want to make contract with Green Grow. In the given situation, there is not any contract has been formed between them and so not any contractual liability takes place. Further, in the context of Sow This, it has submitted tender application in timely manner and also it is received by Airport, but such tender has not been considered by the Airport, and therefore there is also not any contract has been formed.

At last, in the context of Grassy Plains, it has been seen that, tender has been submitted within time limit but it was reached at 2 June. Since, by application of postal rule, it can be said that, date of communication would be 30th May and therefore it is within time. Further, Airport has also awarded tender to Grassy Plains, and letter of acceptance has been posted by Airport. However, it should be noted that, actually such letter has never been received by Grassy Plains as it was destroyed and in the absence of any actual communication, there was not any contract has been formed between Airport and Grassy Plains. Therefore, Grassy Plains was eligible to make contract with another party such as regional council.


The conclusion could be drawn from above analysis is that, there is not any contract formed between Sierra Foxtrot Airport and Green Grow, Sow This, and Grassy Plains, and therefore not any contractual liabilities take place. 


A Pavlovich (2020), ‘Reasonable Offers’ As a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos, Modern law review, 83(2), pp.443–450.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12505

Australian Contract Law (2019). (Online). Available through <https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/law/agreement>[Accessed on 31st August 2021]

C Harold, et al.(2016), Investigating the Effects of Applicant Justice Perceptions on Job Offer Acceptance, Personnel psychology, 69(1), pp.199–227.https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12101

L Tucker (2020), FROM CONTRACT RIGHTS TO CONTACT RIGHTS: RETHINKING THE PARADIGM FOR POST-ADOPTION CONTACT AGREEMENTS, Boston University law review, 100(6), pp.2317–2366.https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2021/01/TUCKER.pdf

M Ahmed(2018). The nature and enforcement of choice of law agreements, Journal of private international law, 14(3), pp.500–531.https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2018.1525062

Postal Acceptance Rule (2021). (Online). Available through <https://sklawyers.com.au/dictionary/postal-acceptance-rule/>[Accessed on 31st August 2021]

Fill the form to continue reading

Download Samples PDF

Assignment Services