MLC101-Law for Commerce & Yukiko Lee Case Study – Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task


Law for Commerce 

A-Plus Writing Help For University Students

Get expert assistance in any academic field. All courses and programs covered.

Get Help Now!

Unit Learning Outcome (ULO)
ULO1: Apply key principles of law for commerce to recognise and evaluate legal issues.
ULO2: Interpret and analyse a range of legal issues and the bearing they have in commerce 
ULO3: Use appropriate digital technologies to search, retrieve and apply relevant information to law for commerce. 
ULO4: Identify critical legal issues in the international context that have a bearing on business ethics, standards and practice in Australia

Overview of this assessment

This assessment provides you with another opportunity to formalise a written answer to legal problems (hypothetical fact scenarios – HFS), albeit at a more advanced level, with an expectation of legal research. This assessment is the second step in acquiring the skill of legal argumentation, which is set as a discipline-specific skill with which to enhance your writing abilities, as well as to provide a deeper understanding of the workings of law for commerce. It is important that your discussion focuses on analysing the facts of the HFS and applying the law to those facts. Marks will be awarded for:

  • your identification of the issues and the material facts that are relevant to those issues;
  • your identification of the law (cases) that applies to those facts and issues; and
  • most importantly, the application and analysis of the law as it applies to those facts and issues. Generalised statements of legal principles – that is, those that are not sufficiently relevant to the facts – will attract limited marks only;
  • a conclusion, which is either certain, or dependent on the facts of the scenario, uncertain. In other words, if you are unable to conclude with certainty, please explain why.

It is also expected that you observe tertiary level academic writing standards – organise your writing in proper paragraphs, with correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.
There is a research component to this assessment (scenarios two and three require research beyond the course materials to excel). You are expected to conduct your own research. There is no minimum or maximum number of resources that you must include, but all material must be correctly referenced according to the Deakin Harvard style of referencing. It is NOT about how many references you use, but rather the relevance and quality of those references that you select.

Specific Requirements
Your task is to provide analysis and evaluation of the legal issues posed in the case study (with HFS), drawing on the legal principles covered in Topics 3, 4 and 5. These scenarios (except for Scenario 3) are based broadly on your course materials from these topics; however, further research (beyond the textbook) for scenarios two and three will most definitely enhance the quality of your submission and help you to score a high grade for this assessment. You must correctly reference for this assessment.
However, please do not reference Power point slides. Cite cases in full (you may abbreviate using only the first name after the first full citation), but you need not cite the source of the case. In other words, if you research the facts from our textbook or the library database such as Westlaw AU, you only need to cite the cases, not the textbook or the website.

Learning Outcome Details for this Assessment
This task allows you to demonstrate achievement towards the unit learning outcomes. The ULOs are aligned with specific graduate learning outcomes – that is, the skills and knowledge that graduates are expected to have upon completion of their studies – and this assessment task is an important tool in determining achievement of those outcomes. If you do not demonstrate achievement of the unit learning outcomes, you will not be successful in this unit.
It is good practice to familiarise yourself with the ULOs and GLOs, as they provide guidance on the knowledge, understanding and skills you are expected to demonstrate upon completion of the unit. In this way they can be used to guide your study.



Scenario 1
Leeworks for a dental group (Dimples and Smiles (DS)) in Southport, QLD, as a dental nurse.In early March this year, one of the new CT scan imaging machines at the dentistry became faulty and failed to produce clear images.DS purchased the machine from Wisdom Teeth Express (WTE), an online dental supplies retailer in Brisbane.  Lee calls WTE to ask for a technician to visit the clinic as soon as possible to assess what is wrong with the machine.  Three days later, a person by the name of Andrew visits the clinic and says that he was sent from WTE to look at the faulty machine.  Andrew produces a business card that has his name and the words ‘Med Machine Repairs’ on the front of the card.  

After checking the machine, Andrew advises Lee that he can repair the machine for $1,000, but he will need to take it back to his repair shop, where he has the necessary tools and parts.  Lee’s boss is very keen to have the machine repaired, so she agrees, and gives Andrew a company cheque for $1,000.  The next day Lee calls the number provided on Andrew’s card, but when she asks for Andrew, the person responds that they have never heard of anyone called Andrew and have not seen the machine.  It turns out that the person claiming to be Andrew was actually a rogue, pretending to work for WTE.  Lee is now very worried, as the machine is worth over $30,000.  She calls the police, and after three days they track down the rogue and arrest him.  Unfortunately, the rogue had sold the machine to a second-hand medical supplies warehouse (2MSW), who were not aware of the origins of the machine, nor that the seller was a rogue.  Lee is sure that 2MSW must return the machine to DS because the rogue had tricked her but 2MSW disagree.

Scenario 2
Yukiko,Lee’s older sister, lives in Perth in Western Australia.  Yukiko works as an associate project manager for ROVERS Pvt Ltd., an amphibious vehicle manufacturer that sells its vehicles to both commercial and military customers in Australia and worldwide.  ROVERSwas one of five companies competing for a Commonwealth defence force contract worth over $5m, however it was unsuccessful and the contract was offered to one of its competitors, Hydrotech.  Yukiko had been working for ROVERS for over three years, but whenthe board ofHydrotech approached her about taking up a similar role with their company, she felt torn, as the salary was lucrative and the contract was for 6 years; 2 years longer than her contract with ROVERS, which was about to run out.  Yukiko decides to bite the bullet and take the opportunity, so she signs the contract with Hydrotech.  When ROVERS finds out about Yukiko’s defection to one of its main competitors, they inform Yukiko of a clause in her contract with ROVERS.  The employment contract included restraint clauseswhich provided that Yukiko must not:

a. Solicit or compete for the custom of, or accept business from, any person who was a customer of the Company at any time during the one year immediately preceding the termination of the Employee’s employment;

b. Solicit or endeavour to obtain the services of any professional person who was an employee, consultant or contractor of the company at any time during the one year immediately preceding the termination of the Employee’s employment;

c. Engage in, be involved in, or be associated with, a business competing with the business of the company (anywhere in the world) in the capacity of an employee or contractor for 10 years upon resigning from thepost with ROVERS.

Yukiko had also entered into to a confidentiality agreement restraining her from disclosing confidential information for the duration of employment and for a period of 10 years thereafter. ROVERS claimed that Yukiko’s intimate knowledge of its research and development, as well as close relationship with its customers, amounted to confidential information that could be misused against ROVERS.  Yukiko does not believe that the restraints are reasonable,but is also aware of a Supreme Court of Western Australia case that is similar to her situation.  She comes to you for advice.

Scenario 3

Tom, Lee’s ex-boyfriend, is a new shareholder and junior manager of Nick Nacks Ltd. (NN), a fintech companyin Adelaide that trades mainly in cryptocurrency. NN employstwenty permanent staff and also employs workers on a casual basis from overseas to maintain active trading 24 hours a day (the casuals mostly trade at night).  Due to many of the workers being based in the Philippines and Indonesia, NN is able to reduce its costs by paying very low wages, often below the minimum wage of those countries.

Recently, Tomreceived news that one of their casual employees in Philippines was being investigated for identity theft.  Tom’s fellow business owners are very concerned about news reports that may link the employee to NN.  Cathy, the major shareholder of NN tells Tom that they’d best find a way to ‘shut the whole thing down’ or NN were going to lose many customers.  Cathy decides to callher friend Carlos in Manila, and asks him to find the employee and to offer them 20,000 pesos to not mention NN to the authorities.  Further to this, she asks Carlos to speak to his (Carlos’s) uncle, a senior constable for the Manila Police to ‘help’ keep NN out of the investigation.  She tells Carlos that NN will pay his uncle handsomely for his help. Tom is very uncomfortable with Cathy’s strategy in protecting NN’s reputation, but being the youngest and newest manager (having just joined after moving from Gold Coast), he decides it would be best to just ‘go along with everything’ and not interfere. 

Imagine that you work for Global Compact Network Australia, and are presenting tosmall to medium size businesses in Adelaide (including NN).  Drawing on your experience and understanding of the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, how would you advise about Tom’s situation.

This MLC101-Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Expert at TV Assignment Help. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing Style. Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. 

You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turn tin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.

Welcome to our Online Essay Writing Agency. Securing higher grades costing your pocket? Order your assignment online at the lowest price now! Our online essay writers are able to provide high-quality assignment help within your deadline. With our homework writing company, you can order essays, term papers, research papers, capstone projects, movie review, presentation, annotated bibliography, reaction paper, research proposal, discussion, or another assignment without having to worry about its originality – we offer 100% original content written completely from scratch

We write papers within your selected deadline. Just share the instructions