Faculty of Architecture, Computing & Humanities
Department of Law and Criminology
- Assessment Details
Methods of Assessment Problem Question
Grading Mode
Weighting % 100%
Pass Mark 50%
Word Length 1,750
Outline Details Essay or Problem question.
Problem solving to involve a contemporary case study in which knowledge, application, reasoning and effective communication are to be demonstrated. Essay-based questions for analysis and critical thinking.
Last item of Assessment Yes
Are students required to pass all components in order to pass the course Yes
Summative (Actual) Coursework
Assessment Title Weight towards final grade Length Due Date
Problem Question 100% 1,750 31 July 2020 (Friday)
Below is the summative coursework for Common Law Foundations LLM. You will need to submit your completed and anonymous coursework via the Turnitin link on the Common Law Foundations’ course page on Moodle.
What is expected from you?
• The word count is 1,750 words.
• This coursework is 100% of your grade for the Common Law Foundations course.
• The pass mark is 50%.
• Your footnotes must be in accordance to the OSCOLA referencing system (Oxford) and Reference List must be included in your coursework.
• Please note the deadline.
The Problem
James read an advertisement by a firm of London auctioneers to the effect that there would be held in London an auction sale “without reserve” of the famous Gatsby Painting Collection, valued by an independent expert recently at £250,000. He immediately booked a flight from Scotland to the auction rooms in London where the auction was to be held.
He was determined to get the Collection at any price, especially after catching sight of the artist himself at the sale. James was participating spiritedly in the bidding, which was reaching a very high level under the direction of the auctioneer, when Gatsby demanded that the auction cease since he could not after all bear to part with the paintings. The auctioneer immediately refused to accept any more bids (the last one had been made by James) and went on to the next item. James’s last bid was £150,000.
James brought an action against the auctioneers for breach of contract demanding £100,000 damages (representing the difference between the contract price and the market value of the lot at the date of the breach) on the basis that the advertisement to hold an auction without reserve constituted a unilateral offer to sell the Collection to the highest bidder and that such an offer was accepted by him when he bid at the auction. The County Court, however, found for the auctioneers holding that:
- The advertisement to hold an auction without reserve did not amount to an offer to sell the lot to the highest bidder since there were no express words to that effect in the advertisement, merely a statement of fact that the seller had not placed a reserve on the lot.
- The auctioneer’s request for bids amounted merely to an invitation to make an offer to buy and that offer was made by bidding. No contract could be completed until the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer.
- There was no contract because there was no consideration for the auctioneer’s promise.
- In any event, damages would be purely nominal because, as the highest bidder, James was simply deprived of the chance of obtaining the lot at the price which he actually bid. Until the fall of the hammer, it would have been open to other bidders to bid at a higher price.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. James now wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The following cases and statutes (available on Westlaw) were referred to in the courts below:
Warlow v. Harrison (1859) 120 E.R. 925
Johnstone v. Boyes [1899] 2 Ch. 73
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 Q.B. 256
Williams v. Carwardine (1833) 2 L.J.K.B. 101
Barry v. Heathcote Ball & Co (Commercial Auctions) Ltd [2001] 1 All E.R. 944
Harris v. Nickerson (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 286
Payne v. Cave (1789) 3 Term. Rep. 148
Fenwick v. MacDonald Fraser & Co Ltd (1904) 6 F. (Court of Sessions) 850
Section 57(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
The Task
You are asked to write a concise piece of legal advice advising James of his chances of a successful appeal to the Supreme Court. Your advice should not exceed 1,750 words in length (excluding your bibliography). If you exceed the word limit by more than 10%, you will be penalised by up to 5% of the marks. Do NOT use footnotes or endnotes – all case citations (and other references) should be included in the body of your advice. Your work should be word-processed and contain a detailed bibliography with full citations. Your advice should be supported by relevant case law and statutes (where appropriate). Plagiarism will not be tolerated, do not copy anyone else’s work, or show anyone else your work. You are reminded that plagiarism includes purchasing model coursework from whatever source.
Learning Outcomes
This coursework is designed to test the following legal skills:
• To understand the foundation principles of the English law of contract (don’t need to elaborate too much)
• To understand the foundation principles of the English legal system (don’t need to elaborate too much)
• To handle factual data, selecting the material that is legally relevant
• To identify the legal issues that require consideration
• To deal with those issues in a clear and coherent manner
• To select appropriate authorities that will enable a resolution of those issues
• To write and argue rationally, coherently and succinctly
• To use appropriate legal skills (i.e., citation of cases, legal research, etc.)
Hand-in date: 31 July 2020 (Friday), by no later than 9AM (HONG KONG TIME). You must submit your work electronically via Turnitin. Do NOT hand in a paper copy.
5.2 Detailed description of assessment
Marking Criteria
Generic University of Greenwich Masters marking criteria
The following is transposed from the University Regulations – these should be read in conjunction with the specific guidelines and learning outcomes that you are given for your assignments together with any guidance you are given in class.
Essay Class Mark Range Criteria
90-100 A brilliant piece of work of outstanding quality and innovation. Has total control of all relevant material. Shows outstanding insight and an ability to structure and synthesise material. Work of the highest order. The candidate could be expected to achieve no more. Expression/style/ grammar outstanding. With some re-writing could be publishable in an academic journal
80-89 An outstanding piece of work. Has total control of relevant material and shows an excellent synthesis of factual and conceptual components. Work of a very high order. Expression/style/ grammar excellent
70-79 An excellent piece of work. High level of understanding of all relevant material with excellent, relevant use of referencing and examples. Communicates clearly and effectively using a coherent structure showing insight and perceptiveness. A commendable degree of academic originality. Expression/style/grammar excellent
65-69 A very good piece of work. Demonstrates all the qualities of 60-64 level essay to a higher degree of development. Evidence of extensive background reading beyond the materials suggested. Sustained argument throughout, demonstrates a sound understanding of the material and issues
60-64 A good piece of work. Shows a firm grasp of the majority of the relevant material. Argues well and effectively. Is able to criticise and evaluate material. Well structured and shows good evidence of wider background reading. Correctly and appropriately referenced. Some evidence of originality of thought. Expression/style/grammar good
55-59 A slightly more competent piece of work which shows the beginnings of a reasonable understanding of the material and presents it satisfactorily with appropriate examples and referencing. Structure is apparent and there is a coherent (although possibly not very strong) argument with an adequate conclusion. No obvious weaknesses, except a lack of originality. Evaluative/critical/analytical skills present but not highly developed. Expression/style/grammar moderately good
50-54 Bare pass. A barely satisfactory piece of work which shows some structure, some relevant use of examples and a little evidence of background reading. Some evidence of independent thought and the development of a substantiated argument, not simply regurgitated lecture material, but at a fairly minimal level. Conclusions not well developed. Referencing may be limited. Expression/style/grammar adequate
45-49 Bare fail. Shows some very basic understanding of the subject area. Argument obscure, weak or unbalanced, and only partially relevant, with some major omissions. Demonstrates a small degree of understanding, reflection, structure and referencing. Partially successful attempt to use relevant examples and facts. Some reading and reflective thought. Conclusions weak. Expression/style/grammar limited
40-44 Fails to achieve designated learning outcomes. A small amount of relevant material and a few examples, but little or no attempt to relate this to the question. Insufficient evidence of reading and limited understanding. Unsubstantiated remarks. Naïve – i.e. simplistic and lacks control/awareness of the subject material and reflective thought. Referencing poor. Material not well organised and lacks appropriate structure. Expression/style/grammar weak
35-39 Generally unsatisfactory. Little or no reading at an appropriate level. A small amount of material of relevance, with major omissions and errors. A few redeeming features, e.g. some evidence of preparation and of very limited understanding. Expression/style/grammar poor.
30-34 Very unsatisfactory. Lacking evidence of preparation, evaluative or reflective skills. Largely irrelevant. Little or no understanding. Expression/style/grammar/presentation very poor. Hardly any, or no, evidence of reading/organisation
16-29 Wholly unsatisfactory, little or no evidence of preparation, analytical or evaluative skills. No evidence of understanding of the material or ability to structure or present material. Hastily thrown together. Presentation poor. Expression/style/grammar extremely poor
0-15 Very little material; or irrelevant or incomprehensible material
Referencing
You will be expected to reference in accordance to the OSCOLA (Oxford) referencing guide. This guide has been specially developed for use by law students and academics.
The following is an extract from the OSCOLA Quick Referencing Guide which is published by Hart Publishing:
Primary Sources
Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.
Cases
Give the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884
R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint after the court.
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45]
Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37]
R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31
If citing a particular judge:
Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)
Statutes and statutory instruments
Act of Supremacy 1558
Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)
Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166
EU legislation and cases
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5
Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48
European Court of Human Rights
Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10
Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124
Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004)
Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188
Secondary Sources
Books
Give the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268
Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)
K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998)
Contributions to edited books
Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006)
Encyclopedias
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53
Journal articles
Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440
When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint.
JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’ (2001) 117 LQR 42, 64
Online journals
Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010) 1(1) EJLT < http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 > accessed 27 July 2010
Command papers and Law Commission reports
Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5
Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17
Websites and blogs
Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009) www.nakedlaw.com/2009/05/index.html accessed 19 November 2009
Newspaper articles
Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3
- Other Details
The majority of information relevant to you, while you study at the University, has been brought together into your program handbook. Please refer to your program handbook for any further information you might require including:
• How to submit assignments,
• Deadlines and extenuating circumstances,
• Plagiarism and referencing,
• Who to go to for advice or if you are concerned,
• How to provide us with feedback,
• Key administrative procedures.