Tuesday, 17 January 2017

For UOL LBO students only

UOL Essay 

Formal Feedback on Written Work: Draft Guidance for Students

Whenever you submit a piece of written work (either assessed or non-assessed, excluding exams), we aim to give you feedback on this to help you understand what you have done well and not so well, and how you can improve in the future. Depending on the circumstances, formal feedback will be given via a feedback form, or by comments on your essay, or both. You are also likely to receive informal feedback from time to time.
We aim to make feedback:
  • Constructive
  • Available within a reasonable time of submission of the work (current guidelines for non-assessed pieces is the availability of feedback within three teaching weeks)
  • Legible, though not necessarily word-processed.
Feedback does not consist of proof reading (e.g. identification of all grammatical errors within a piece), or re-writing of the essay by the examiner.
To gain the maximum benefit from feedback, you need to do the following:
  • Obtain the feedback (methods of collection may differ - you will be notified by your lecturer or tutor). Your tutor will make feedback available within a reasonable time, but it is your responsibility to access this.
  • Read the comments and relate them to your work (you should have kept a draft to which you can refer).
  • Read the Learning Outcomes in your Module Handbook, to understand the minimum that is expected of you in each module.
  • Read the Class Descriptors in your Undergraduate Student Handbook, to understand the standard expected of a particular range of marks.
  • Think about what you need to do and know in order to improve your work next time.

Feedback on non-assessed written work

Will have a percentage mark.
Your tutor may, but need not, use a feedback form on non-assessed work.
Your essay will be returned to you. There may be feedback on the essay itself.

Feedback on assessed work

Will have an indicative grade, which may be subject to change by the external examiner.
Your essay will not be returned to you.
You will be notified of the final mark after all assessments for that module have been processed. For Semester 1 short fat modules, this will be in early February. For all other modules, this will be in mid-June.

The feedback form

The headings of the main sections should be self-evident.
In the smaller boxes:
‘Writing style’ refers to fluency of style and economy of expression.
‘Communication’ concerns communication of ideas. It may be the case that a student’s writing style and/or grammar is poor, but s/he effectively communicates his or her thoughts, or vice versa.

The meaning of the other small boxes should be obvious.

Thursday, 21 April 2016

DMS Revision MCQ Exam 1 Feb 2016

Here are the answers:

Q1 (C)

Q2 (D)

Q3 (B)

Q4 (D)

Q5 (A)

Q6 (B)

Q7 (A)

Q8 (C)

Q9 (D)

Q10 (C)

Sunday, 31 January 2016

Monday, 26 October 2015

Study Process: For DMS

1. Attend all online/offline lectures
2. Get back to Online text book and make your own notes /mind maps.
3. Attend the 3 teacher explanation video, if any
4. Still in a blur? Try Business Law simplified (see links below) to understand some of the cases. Please do not look for cases more than 4 paragraphs long.
5. Test your knowledge against tutorial questions. There are further test questions and sample answers at the end of the textbook.

Monday, 4 November 2013

Good Scores March 2016 CA1 DMS

There were many good answers , here a couple of them.

Dear Student,
Important : Please use a PC to view this because I have highlighted some paras in colour which may not appear if you are using a mobile device. Best viewed on google docs.
Thank you for submitting your assignment on time. Kindly keep in mind the following Legend when reviewing my comments.

Commentary Legend :
Blue Highlight means these points were very  good and significant. Above average  Standard.
Green highlight means these points were reasonably good and significant. Credit Standard.
Mustard  means that some of these points were irrelevant or should have been shortened
Red means that the wrong law was stated.
Grey means that the points should have been made clearer.

If you need further clarification, please e-mail me, I will be happy to assist.
Sample #1 

Table of Content
Applicable Law 1
Applicable Law 2
Applicable Law 3
Applicable Law 4
Overall Conclusion

The issue of this case is regarding the exemption Clause 14, which has the legal effect of excluding or limiting the liability of the party in breach who relies on the clause for protection. There are four factors in determining the validity of Clause 14: incorporation, construction, presence of unusual factors, and neutralization by UCTA. We will look into whether clause 14 is valid in this contract or not. And then give advice to Brandon.

Applicable law 1
There are two ways that exemption clause becomes incorporated into a contract: by signature or notice. When an exemption clause is given in a notice, the notice must be brought to the attention of the other party either before or at the time the contract is made. In Olley v. Malborough Court (1949), Olley lost her expensive coat in her hotel room and wanted to sue the hotel. However the hotel hoped rely on the exemption clause what was behind her door to avoid the responsibility. The court held the clause was not part of the contract as it was brought to her attention after the contract was made.

Since the time Brandon nodded his head and paid $100 to Mark after understanding the agreement what included Clause 14 “seller accepts no liability for any damage or harm and or injury arising from the use of bicycle after taking delivery”. It could be considered as the incorporation notice.
For the exclusion clause to be upheld, it must be reasonable visible. The agreement that Mark explained to his buyer was a large print agreement. Further, it also had a direct reference because Brandon received a copy from Mark.    
So, this document is regarded simply as incorporation notice because Brandon and Mark made the contract after reading that agreement, which was different from the case of Olley v. Malborough Court (1949).

In conclude, there is incorporated by notice because it came before the contract and the copy was considered as a reference. So Clause 14 is valid.
Once an exemption clause is incorporated, then it has to be construed or interpreted to see whether it clearly covers the loss or injury suffered by the innocent party.  Obviously, the wider the clause, the more protection the party have. There are two rules of construction: Contra Proferentum Rule and Main Purpose rule.
If there is any ambiguity to the meaning of an exclusion clause, the clause will be construed “contra proferentem” that against the party who proposed the contract or clause.
In Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance (1954), there was a lack of clarity in the exemption clause. The insurers’ policy caused ambiguity because stated “any load”. The court decided that the insurance company could not be escape from responsibility.

In this case, Clause 14 was not ambiguity. It clearly stated that “any damage” including “harm, injury and damage for using of the bicycle after sale”, Which was different from the case of Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance (1954),

In conclusion, the exemption clause was effective and it allowed Mark to take no liability for those mistakes and damages made by the user.

If there are any usual factors that may limit the effectiveness of the exemption clause such as a misrepresentation about the scope and extent of the clause by the party relying on it, then it will be invalid.
In Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951), the court held that the defendant could not rely on the exclusion clause because the plaintiff signed the receipt due to misrepresentation.

It is known that after Brandon fractured his wrist, Kevin found the bike had been dangerously corroded for some time. But during the transaction time, Mark did not told Brandon the problem the bike had. He only explained Clause 14 covered accident due to negligence of the buyer in not maintaining the bike after delivery. Since when accident happened, it was the first time Brandon rode it, there was no responsibility for Brandon of not maintaining the bike, which meat there was a misrepresentation of Mark. Therefore, the misrepresentation could limit the effectiveness of the clause.
Mark could not rely on the exemption clause and was liable to this damage as the exemption clause was invalid because of the misrepresentation.

Applicable law 4
Even if an exemption clause seems to form part of he contract based on the 3 factors, it may be neutralized by Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), which is mainly focused on protecting consumers entering into business transactions. In section 2(1), an exemption clause is void if it excludes liability for death or personal injury due to negligence.
In White v. John Warwick (1953), the court held that the exemption clause could not protect the defendant from being liable for negligence.

According to section 2(1) of the Under Contract Term Act, party in the breach cannot exclude their liability due to negligence that related to someone's injury or death. As we look into the case White v. John Warwick (1953), the plaintiff hired a bicycle under a contract with a term: nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injuries to the riders of the machine hired. Nevertheless, the plaintiff still could sue the defendant for breaching the contract, because of their negligence and caused an accident. Similarly, in this case, the dangerously corroded of brake wires caused Brandon lost control and ran into a drain. As a result of fractured his wires. For this reason, Mark breached the contract under the UTCA section 2(1) for negligence and cause Brandon's injury. Therefore, Brandon could claim injury and got the compensation.
Mark would be liable for the injury of Brandon because of section 2(1) in the UCTA and there is no section 2(2) in the UCTA of this case.

Overall Conclusion
The exclusion clause was effective based on 2 factors: incorporated and construction. However, due to unusual factors and neutralized by UCTA, Mark was liable for Brandon’s injury. Brandon could sue Mark for compensation.
Business law for DMS
Ravi Chandran, Introduction to Business Law in Singapore, Fourth Edition.

Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)
Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)
Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance (1954)
White v. John Warwick (1953)

Unfair Contract Terms Act

Sample 2

a) Legal Effect Applicable
According to the law of contract, a contract contains four elements which is offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, when these four elements is included during a transaction between the offeror and offeree a contract is formed. However, there is a section in a contract that excludes any kind of liability when there is a breach of contract and specify that a party is excluded from any kind of liability which is known as exemption clauses. Although this section did have some unfairness to the other party, there is also a change of law that will brought back the fairness and limits the liability that can be excluded. Exemption clauses can be valid and effective on four factors which are incorporation, construction, presence of unusual factors and neutralization by UCTA
In this case, between a deal of Mark the offeror and Brandon the offeree, an exemption clause had been made named Clause 14 which stated The seller accepts no liability for any damage, harm or injury arising from the use of the bicycle for any reason whatsoever. This means Mark will not be liable to Brandon whenever he is injured from using the bicycle after the sale has been made.
b) Factors Determining the Validity
Firstly, incorporation means that making the exemption clauses as part of the contract. There are two ways of incorporating the exemption clauses, either by signing or by notice. By signing a written contract that contains exemption clause, any exception is considered after the contract is signed, it does not matter whether the party that signed read or understand the contract. If the exemption clause is incorporated by a notice, the offeror has to inform the notice to the offeree before a contract is made.
For this case Mark did give him a draft and a notice about Clause 14 right before Brandon bought the bicycle, proving that Clause 14 is valid.
Secondly, after the exemption clause had been incorporated, the clause itself should be constructed in a proper and clear way for the other party to understand about the clauses. If the clause is not constructed properly there will be a contra proferentem or interpretation against the draftsman, when this happens the clause itself will be invalid.
In this case, Mark had explained to Brandon about the exemption clause about Clause 14 clearly. The Clause 14 sounds The seller accepts no liability for any damage, harm or injury arising from the use of the bicycle for any reason whatsoever. Thus, Clause 14 is also valid due to its clear construction of words.
Unusual Factors
Thirdly, the unusual factors, an example of unusual factor in an exemption clause would be a misrepresentation that is given to the offeree when a contract is formed, even a small misrepresentation in an exemption clause could render that clause to be invalid.
In the case between Mark and Brandon is that where clause 14 is written in the draft that mark will not be liable to Brandon if he suffers from an injury while using the bicycle for any kind of reason. However, there is a clear misrepresentation of the statement as Mark also explain verbally to Brandon that Clause 14 only covers accidents due to the negligence of the buyer for not maintaining the bicycle after taking delivery. Therefore, due to an unusual factor to in Clause 14, causing the clause itself will be invalid.
This unusual factor can be supported with the case of Curtis V Chemical Cleaning, whereas Chemical Cleaning told Curtis that the exemption clause will only covers any kind of risks except for certain risks of damages apply to the goods such as beads and sequins. But, when Curtis collected the goods, there was a stained. When Curtis sued Chemical Cleaning, they wanted to use the exemption clause to escape the liability towards Curtis. However, due to a misrepresentation happen in the exemption clause which has stated it will not cover the risk such as beads and sequins. In other words, damages caused by the stain will be covered by Chemical cleaning, making them could not rely on the exemption clause.
Neutralization by Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA)
Lastly, neutralization by the unfair contract terms act or UCTA. UCTA is usually an act that mainly focused on protecting the consumers when they are entering into a business transaction. UCTA is able to neutralize the exemption clauses even though the three factors had considered the clause as valid. There are two sections that covers exemption clauses in UCTA.
The first one is on section 2(1) which had stated that an exemption clause that excludes liability will be void if there is a death or personal injury due to negligence occurred. The second one is on section 2(2) that stated an exemption clause can exclude liability for other loss or damage due to negligence but only in a fair and reasonable circumstances.
For this case, Kevin the third party for this case found that the bicycle brakes had been corroded dangerously for some time, this means before the transaction between Mark and Brandon had been created, a problem had occurred due to Mark negligence of not maintaining the bicycle properly during it is still in his hand. Therefore, under UCTA section 2(1) Clause 14 is automatically void due to a negligence had been made beforehand and it had caused a personal injury. With UCTA section 2(2) it is unfair and unreasonable to exclude liability for damages due to negligence. This is because Mark should take responsible of maintaining the bicycle before he tries to sell it to Brandon, an excuse such as forgetting to maintain the bike would be unfair to the customers as it could cause a damage toward he/she. UCTA section 2(2) had also make Clause 14 invalid. With those two sections of UCTA showing that Clause 14 is invalid, this had proved that validation of Clause 14 will be neutralized by the UCTA, making the clause itself invalid.
c) Conclusion
To conclude, as Clause 14 is neutralized by UCTA as invalid, Mark will be liable to Brandon. Mark has to do two things to compensate Brandon, the first one would be giving back Brandon the money that he paid him for the bicycle which cost $100.00 and the second one is to pay the medical bill for Brandon’s injury.
Ask a Solicitor Now. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

An exemption clause will become effective in protecting party | Law Teacher. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Exemption clause | Law Teacher. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/exemption-clause.php

Chandran, R. (2006). Introduction to business law in Singapore. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Beatty, J. F., & Samuelson, S. S. (2007). Introduction to business law. Mason, OH: Thomson/West.