BUS201+Examination+Report+JUL+2020 PDF

Preview

Summary

EXAMINATION REPORTCourse Code/Title : BUS201 – Contract & Agency LawSemester : J ULY 20 20 SEMESTERPART IOverall Performance of Students in the Examination:In general, many students were able to, at least on a broad level, identify the relevant issues in the questions and apply some of the r...

Description

EXAMINATION REPORT

Course Code/Title

: BUS201 – Contract & Agency Law

Semester

: JULY 2020 SEMESTER

PART I Overall Performance of Students in the Examination: In general, many students were able to, at least on a broad level, identify the relevant issues in the questions and apply some of the relevant legal principles in their answers. They generally performed well for Question 1 (relating to the elements of offer and acceptance as applied to a tender scenario), Question 3 (relating to the precise performance rule and its exceptions in a precision manufacturing context) and Question 4 (relating to the agency relationship between a principal and her property agent). However, many students did not perform well for Question 2, which relates to an assessment of the enforceability of a clause for liquidated damages with reference to the common law guidelines for liquidated damages. Given the nature of the examination as a Timed Online Assignment (TOA), some students provided an excessive amount of content in their electronic submissions. In such cases, not all the content is relevant or necessary to answer the questions posed. Students should note that such a practice (of including excessive and irrelevant material in their answers) is unproductive, and may detract from the relevant parts of their answer. While many students were able to cite supporting case law and statutory provisions (where applicable) when stating the legal principles, a number of students did not do so. For example, in relation to Question 3, some students did not cite case law when discussing the various exceptions to the precise performance rule. Most students were able to attempt all of the four questions. A few students did not attempt Question 4 well, and this could be due to poor time management resulting in insufficient time to attempt the last question.

Page 1 of 6

Strengths and Weaknesses of Students in Examination:

Key strengths: •

Students who performed well were able to state and apply the relevant legal principles that corresponded to the issues posed by each question. The better students were able to apply the legal principles in a responsive manner to the specific facts of each question.

•

The higher quality answers also tended to be well-structured with a logical flow that corresponded closely to the requirements of the question.

Key weaknesses: •

A number of students had answers that completely missed the mark in terms of responding to the requirements of the question. For example, Question 2 tested students on assessing the enforceability of a clause for liquidated damages. The clause in that question is not an exemption clause. However, some students discussed the principles relating to the enforceability of an exemption clause instead. Students should always read the question carefully to avoid making such mistakes.

•

As mentioned earlier, given the nature of the examination as a Timed Online Assignment with electronic submission of their answer scripts, some students provided an excessive amount of content in their answers, and in such cases, the students have included content that is irrelevant to the question, or is unnecessary to answer the question. Students should also be careful to avoid plagiarism concerns, as it was noted in some cases that students copied text from other sources or their own prior assignments, without taking appropriate measures such as including an in-text citation and using double quotation marks where necessary.

Page 2 of 6

PART II Overall performance for each Question: Question 1

Question 1 tested students on the elements of offer and acceptance in the context of a business tender.

Strengths: •

In general, most students were able to state the relevant legal principles relating to the concepts of invitation to treat, offer and acceptance.

•

Most students were also able to correctly explain that the newspaper advertisements are likely to be an invitation to treat, while the tenders submitted by interested suppliers are likely to be offers.

Weaknesses: •

Some students did not adequately address the requirements of the question. The question asked students to make recommendations to Mariam so that her concerns (as described in the scenario) would be addressed. Some students did not do so.

•

Some students were not clear and consistent in their analysis. For example, they say that the tenders submitted by interested suppliers could be invitations to treat which could be accepted by Mariam. This is inconsistent as an invitation to treat is not an offer, and thus, it is not capable of acceptance.

Page 3 of 6

Question 2 Question 2 tested students on assessing the enforceability of a clause for liquidated damages, by applying the common law guidelines relating to liquidated damages.

Strengths: •

Students who were aware of the common law guidelines relating to liquidated damages were generally able to apply them correctly to the clause given in the scenario, to reach the conclusion that the clause is likely to be a penalty clause, and hence, unenforceable.

•

Higher quality answers were able to systematically and logically apply all the guidelines in the case law relating to liquidated damages.

Weaknesses: •

Some students misunderstood the question and applied the four factors relating to the enforceability of an exemption clause. This is incorrect as the given clause is not an exemption clause.

•

Some students incorrectly discussed the four aspects of damages (i.e. causation, remoteness, mitigation and assessment) instead. Students should note that the question had specifically asked students to analyse the clause with reference to the common law guidelines relating to “liquidated damages”. Hence, it would not be correct for students to discuss the four aspects of damages instead.

•

A number of students did not attempt Question 2(b), or they did not attempt it sufficiently well. Question 2(b) required students to propose two changes to the clause to make it more likely to be enforceable. The proposals should therefore follow logically from the students’ earlier analyses as to the issues relating to the clause that made it unenforceable.

Page 4 of 6

Question 3

Question 3 tested students on the precise performance rule and its exceptions, as applied to a business scenario involving precision manufacturing.

Strengths: •

Many students were able to describe the precise performance rule and its exceptions.

•

Higher quality answers were able to systematically and logically apply the precise performance rule and each of its exceptions to the facts of the scenario, to reach a conclusion that addresses the requirements of the question.

Weaknesses: •

Some students did not discuss all of the exceptions to the precise performance rule, and only selected one or two of them to discuss. This does not accord with the requirements of the question, which specifically requires students to discuss “all of the exceptions”.

•

Some students did not cite relevant case law for the legal principles that they have described.

Page 5 of 6

Question 4

Question 4 tested students on the agency relationship between a principal and her property agent, and whether there is a breach of the agent’s duty based on the facts in the given scenario.

Strengths: •

Many students were able to identify actual authority as one of the two ways in which the agency relationship has arisen in the scenario.

•

For students who were able to correctly identify ratification as the other way in which the agency relationship has arisen in the scenario, they were generally able to state the four criteria for ratification and systematically and logically analyse whether the criteria were satisfied based on the facts.

Weaknesses: •

A number of students incorrectly discussed the creation of agency through apparent authority. This is not correct as the facts given in the scenario do not support such an analysis.

•

When discussing actual authority, some students did not demonstrate that they understood the difference between express actual authority and implied actual authority, or they failed to give relevant examples for each of these categories of authority. Students should note that the question required them to “support [their] answer with specific examples based on the [given] scenario”, so it is an explicit requirement in the question for students to provide relevant examples.

Page 6 of 6...