HI6027 Business and Corporate Law T2 2019

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester

T2 2019

Unit Code

HI6027

Unit Title

Business and Corporate Law

Assessment Type

Group Assignment

Assessment Title

Case Studies of Business Law and Corporations Law

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 two 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 analyse the ethical implications of legal decisions and how they impact on the business environment. (ULO 2)
  • Assess the obligations, rights and remedies available to parties in particular commercial relationships. (ULO 3)
  • Critically examine the foundations of Australian company law. (ULO 4)
  • Critically discuss and apply contract and tort law in business circumstances. (ULO 5)
  • Critically discuss and apply the legal framework that regulates a company’s dealings with outsiders. (ULO 7)

Weight

20% of the total assessments

Total Marks

20 (10% for the group report and 10% for the presentation)

Word limit

Group Written Report of maximum 2,000 words and a 10 minute presentation

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 Harvard referencing style.

Assignment Specifications

Purpose:

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

Students are to form groups, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 students per group. The assignment consists of 2 parts: a 2,000-word written report and a 10 minute (average) in-class or video presentation.

Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.

Group Report

  1. This group assignment consists of 2 parts. Part A is a question on Contract Law, and Part B is a question involving Corporations Law. Both questions must be answered.
  2. The total word limit for the group report is 2,000 words (+/- 10% allowed) with each part having a maximum word count of 1,000 words. Word count limits are strictly enforced. A deduction of two (2) marks will be imposed for every 50 words over the word count for either part of the report. Anything over the word count will not be read by your lecturer.
  3. The total word count for the report as well as each part must be clearly written on the cover sheet of the assignment. A paper will not be marked if the word counts are not written on the cover sheet.
  4. The group report is worth 10% of total marks for this assignment.
  5. Each group must submit a draft of their report on Blackboard according to the due dates below. If a draft is not submitted, the final report will not be marked.
  • by week 8 if class is in the normal mode
  • by week 4 if class is in block mode 1
  • by week 9 is class is in block mode 2

Part A: Contract Law Question

  1. Read the two alternative Contracts Law questions below and choose one question to answer.
  2. In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer your chosen question using the IRAC method.
  3. Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 3 references are required for this part of the report.
  4. Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part A question.

Part B: Corporations Law Question

  1. Read the two alternative Contracts Law questions below and choose one question to answer.
  2. In 1,000 words (+/- 10% is allowed), answer your chosen question using the IRAC method.
  3. Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of 3 references are required for this part of the report.
  4. Your references must be listed in a Reference list at the end of the Part B question.

Group Presentation

  1. Summarise your answers for Parts A and B of the group report.
  2. Present and discuss the summary of your answers in 10 minutes (5 minutes for each part).
  3. The Presentation will be done in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more appropriate.
  • Whether in-class or video presentation, all members must present. The group will be marked down if not all members present.
  1. Video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.
  2. A video presentation consists of both images and audio. For this reason, a plain Power Point presentation showing slides even with accompanying voice recording is not considered a video and, hence, not allowed.
  3. The group presentation is worth 10% of total marks for this assignment.

Important Reminders:

  • You must email your lecturer your list of group members and chosen questions by week 4.
  • All group report submissions must be de done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.
  • Please fill in the “Rubric Group Report” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.
  • Each team member also must also submit to their lecturer a “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) with their presentation/video.
  • No submission of either the group report or video presentation link on Blackboard/SafeAssign (if doing a video presentation) is equivalent to non-submission, which will merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the group assignment.
  • GROUPS OF LESS THAN 3 AND MORE THAN 5 PEOPLE WILL RECEIVE A PENALTY OF 10 marks (50%).
  • Group report must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard and show a similarity percentage figure. Any group report that does not show a SafeAssign similarity percentage will not be marked and be required to re-submit.
  • Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).
  • All reports are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A copy of the AGLC may be read online for free via this link: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2877782/AGLC3.pdf
  • In general, for written reports, a SafeAssign similarity percentage of 25% or below is acceptable. Regardless of the similarity figure, all group reports must use in-text citation and observe proper referencing rules.
  • All assignments are expected to strictly follow Holmes Institute’s Academic Conduct and Integrity Policy and Procedures. A copy of the Policy is available on the Holmes Institute home page. (About Holmes > Policies) This policy is also explained in your Student Handbook.
  • Plagiarism and contract cheating in any form will not be tolerated and will have severe consequences for the groups found committing the same, including receiving zero (0) for the entire assignment and possible failure in the entire unit.

Marking criteria

Weighting (%)

Group Report

Identification of material facts involved in problem question

2%

Identification of legal issues / legal question and relevant law

2%

Thorough yet succinct application of law to material facts

3%

Citation and referencing

1.5%

Professional quality

1.5%

Presentation

Group member participation and division of parts

1.5%

Depth of analysis and evidence of understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers

4%

Level of professionalism in presentation

3%

Overall clarity of presentation

1.5%

TOTAL Weight

20%

Part A: Contracts Law Questions – choose one only Option 1

SOO Burgers is a chain of hamburger restaurants operating in Australia and New Zealand. Sales across the restaurant chain were slow in the last financial year. In order to sell more hamburgers, SOO Burgers ran a competition Australia-wide, which was extensively promoted on radio, newspapers and online. The promotion is called “the Fair Dinkum deal”. According to promotion rules, a token would be attached to the wrapper of every “Double Decker Emu Burger”. If a customer collects 50 of these tokens, they could be redeemed at the counter for a golden scratch ticket. The promotion rules also stated:

“Fair dinkum! Scratch the golden ticket. If it reveals a golden car, present your ticket to the SOO Burgers head office and win the grand prize of a brand new Mazda CX-9.

Hurry! This promotion doesn’t last forever!”

Michael “Mickey” Morrow was extremely keen to join the promotion and win the car. It also helped that he loves SOO Burgers, particularly the Double Decker Emu Burger. The very next morning after he heard the promotion announced on radio, he rushed to his favourite SOO Burgers branch in Fitzroy. He ordered 50 Double Decker Emu Burgers. Mickey was a man on a mission, and he ate as he had never done before in his life. He passed out from exhaustion and had to be rushed to the emergency room of his local hospital to get his stomach pumped. Luckily though, before passing out, he made sure to redeem his 50 tokens at the counter for a golden scratch ticket.

As would be expected, not all customers were thrilled about going to SOO Burgers and buying a Double Decker Emu Burger just for the chance to win a car. Consequently, many burger wrappers that contained tokens were thrown away in the rubbish bins. Brett Vulture scavenged through the rubbish bins of the SOO Burgers branch at Altona. To collect the discarded wrappers for their tokens. He quickly collected 100 tokens. He went inside the restaurant and redeemed the tokens for two golden scratch tickets. He was ecstatic when he scratched them and found, not one, but two golden cars! He then rushed to SOO Burgers head office in Melbourne, where he presented his winning tickets. The receptionist told him to wait at the reception waiting area. While waiting, an employee came from inside the office and posted a sign on the front door of the office. Curious, Brett approached the sign and read:

“SOO Burgers apologises that because of a printing error, incorrect golden scratch tickets were included in the Fair Dinkum deal. Management is sorry to advise that these faulty tickets are void and will not be honoured.

SOO Burgers thanks its customers for their patience and invite all of them to join its next exciting promotion.”

As Brett looked at the posted in dismay, he spotted another customer who emerged from office accompanied by a SOO Burgers employee. The customer was smiling from ear to ear as he shook the employee’s hand, and said, “I’m so happy to win the car!” It turned out that that customer came in before Brett and presented a winning golden scratch ticket. SOO Burgers honoured his ticket since it had already purchased the only Mazda CX-9 that it was going to give away as the big prize.

In the meantime, while Mickey was at the hospital, SOO Burgers’ announced on radio, newspapers and online that there had been a printing error in the golden scratch tickets. As a result, instead of only one winning golden scratch ticket in the promotion to win the Mazda CX-9, every one in five tickets were winning tickets! SOO Burgers announced that it was immediately declaring that their Fair Dinkum promotion was void and would not honour any prize claims. Mickey did not actually read or hear this announcement. But he overheard some nurses talking as they passed his room about SOO Burgers promotional fiasco and the cancellation of the entire promotion.

Mickey quickly found his golden ticket, scratched it and found a golden car. Thinking that he had not heard anything official from SOO Burgers itself, he discharged himself from the hospital and went straight to the company’s head office with the aim of redeeming his winning ticket. When he arrived, there was a mob of angry customers outside the notice on the front door. As the crowed covered the notice, Mickey did not read it; instead, he approached the receptionist and presented his winning ticket.

SOO Burgers now seeks your legal advice on whether they have to provide (a) Mickey and (b) Brett with the Mazda CX-9s they are claiming. Please advise on Mickey’s and Brett’s positions separately.

Option 2

Frederick Forthryrt is the author of the bestselling novel The Day of the Yokel, which was published by Metro Publishers last year. Forthryt has just completed his second book, The Fourth Pretzel.

Forthryrt does not believe that Metro treated him well, considering the success of his first book. At a party in late February, Forthryrt met Boswold, who was the chief editor at Boswold Books, and asked whether Boswold would be interested in publishing his second book.

Forthryrt said:

‘Mind you, I wouldn’t settle for anything under 40 grand.’ Boswold said he thought that was a fair price.

On 3 March, the editor at Metro Publishers telephoned Forthryt and asked whether he had competed his second book. Forthryrt answered:

‘Yes, and I’m going to sell it to the highest bidder. And I’m dead serious about that.”

The editor at Metro said his company was prepared to pay him $50,000. Forthryrt said he would ‘think about it’.

On 4 March, Forthryrt received a letter from Havoc Films in which Havoc said I would pay him $45,000 for the rights to make The Day of the Yokel into a film. That afternoon Forthryrt wrote back saying:

‘I accept your offer, but must have final say in who plays the lead role.’

On 10 March, Forthryrt received a letter from Boswold enclosing a Boswold standard form contact. In the letter, Boswold said:

‘Further to our agreement re publication of your second book The Fourth Pretzel, please find enclosed formal contract for $40,000 for your signing.’

The contract included a clause specifying the sale included ‘all rights to newspaper and/or magazine serialisation of the said book’ as a non-severable part of the package Boswold was prepared to pay for. Forthryrt did not read the clause. He telephoned Boswold and told him that Metro was willing to pay $50,000 for the book. Boswold said:

‘Well, we can go as high as $45,000.’

Thinking that Boswold Books would give him better treatment than he had received from Metro, Forthryrt substituted $45,000 for $40,000 as the sum payable under the contract and signed the contract. He then put the contract in an envelope and took the envelope to the local post office where he handed it across the counter to a postal worker he knew.

Outside the post office, Forthryrt met Pickwick, a well-established publisher who had a reputation for treating his authors well. Pickwick said he wanted to publish The Fourth Pretzel and, when Forthryrt replied that Boswold Books had said it would pay $45,000, said:

‘Oh that mob. They’re about to go belly up.’

Forthryrt immediately returned to the post office and persuaded the postal worker to give back the envelope containing the contract. Pickwick then wrote a cheque for $45,000 and he and Forthryrt shook hands on the deal.

Advise Forthryrt fully with respect to the contracts that now bind him (if any), indicating when such contracts were concluded.

Part B: Corporations Law questions – choose one only Option 1

Sparkling Pty Ltd (Sparkling) operates three children’s clothing shops in Tasmania. On 8 August 2007, Sarah was appointed to the position of Managing Director of Sparkling for a period of two years. A return was lodged with ASIC indicating her appointment as a director on that date. Sarah was not formally reappointed after 8 August 2009, but she has continued to act as Managing Director. No return was lodged following the expiration of her period of office. The terms of Sarah’s appointment, which were set out in a contract between her and Sparkling, included a restriction to the effect that she was not to commit the company to borrowing transactions in excess of $20,000. Any such transaction was to remain subject to the approval of the board of directors.

On 20 December 2010 Sarah, purportedly acting on behalf of Sparkling, signed a loan contract with Costello Bank, pursuant to which the Bank agreed to lend the company $30,000 in order to establish a eucalypt plantation. The transaction was not referred to the Board.

The Bank was not aware of either:

  • the contents of Sarah’s contract; or
  • the return lodged by Sparkling at the time of Sarah’s appointment.

The Board has since discovered the loan contract and has stopped all repayments on the loan. The Bank has called in the loan and is suing Sparkling for the principal together with all outstanding interest.

  • What do you think the outcome of this case will be?
  • What do you think the outcome of this case should be?
  • Would the outcome of this case be different if:
    • the loan was for refurbishment of two of Sparkling’ clothing shops; and
    • the bank’s loan officer knew Sarah had fallen out of favour with the Board and was negotiating a new job?

Option 2

Joytronics Pty Ltd (Joytronics) operates a retail store where it sells electronics kits, components, semiconductors, enclosures, batteries & chargers, power supplies, test equipment, tools, speakers, and car audio and stereo equipment and accessories.

Felix, Gregg and Mercedes are the only shareholders and directors. Felix reports every day to Joytronics’ main store in Sydney’s CBD and manages the company’s daily operations. Mercedes is a non-executive director and she has no active hand in managing or operating Joytronics. Gregg, who dropped out of school at a young age and did not compete his high school certificate, but who is very knowledgeable about Joytronics’ particular product range, is in charge of the company’s warehouse.

Since Joytronics opened its Sydney store seven years ago until the end of 2018, the store has done very well and consistently earned profits. Unfortunately, a rival business, Primepoint Car and Audio, opened a store down the street from Joytronics’ store. In the last six months, Joytronics’ business suffered and the store has not been as profitable as before.

Felix believes that Joytronics should move to larger store but in a different area in Sydney. Acting alone and without asking either Gregg or Mercedes, he scouts around for a new warehouse store. The first warehouse that he inspects in Parramatta greatly impresses him and he decides that that is where the story should relocate. The selling price of the warehouse though is a bit steep and is above Joytronics’ budget. Felix does not think this is an issue – after all, if it opens in that area of Parramatta, Joytronics would be the only store of its kind in the area and it will have a captured market.

Felix calls a board meeting and announces to Gregg and Mercedes that relocating from Sydney to Parramatta is the right move for the company, that this is the answer to all of the company’s problems, and that the warehouse premises he found is ideal for their needs.

Felix further tells Greg and Mercedes: “But we can’t delay because another company wants to buy this warehouse!” What Felix doesn’t tell his co-directors is that this warehouse is the only property he inspected. But Gregg and Mercedes are so caught up in Felix’s excitement that they agree to his proposal. In reality, Mercedes was unsure about moving the store in the first place and she feels that they need sufficient time to look at their other options. On the other hand, Gregg, who is ignorant about financial matters, agrees with Felix’s recommendation.

Joytronics then proceeds to buy the warehouse and sets up its business therein, opening its new

Parramatta store after three months. Unfortunately, due to several factors outside the company’s control, the store does not do very well and is not profitable. Mercedes and Gregg are stressed out about their obligations as directors of Joytronics if the company’s financial situation grows steadily worse. Mercedes and Gregg come to you for legal advice.

  • Explain to Mercedes the following:
    • What is her legal position with regard to breaches (if any) of her general law or statutory duty of care and diligence as a director?
  • Was her decision to agree to the purchase of the new premises protected by s 180 (2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)?
  • Is she liable for breaching s 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) if Joytronics becomes insolvent.
  • Explain to Gregg his position in respect of any breaches of his duty of care and any possible liability for insolvent trading if Joytronics becomes insolvent.

Marking Rubric

Group Report

Total marks available: 10 marks

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Identification of material facts involved in problem question

2 marks

1.75 to 2 marks

Completely identifies all relevant facts of case

1.25 to 1.5 marks

Identifies most of the relevant facts of case

0.8 to 1 mark

Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts

0 to 0.75 mark

Does not identify relevant facts of case

Identification of legal issues / legal question and relevant law

2 marks

1.75 to 2 marks

Correctly identifies all relevant legal issues and are stated in the form of questions.

Correctly identifies relevant and appropriate legal rules and case law, and states them in the form of statements

1.25 to 1.5 marks

Issues correctly identified, but may contain extraneous information and are not stated in the form of questions.

Legal rules and case law correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and are not in the form of statements.

0.8 to 1 mark

Issues are not completely identified.

Legal rules and case law not correctly identified.

0 to 0.75 marks

Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.

Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.

Thorough yet succinct application of law to material facts

3 marks

2.75 to 3 marks

Correctly identifies facts; wellreasoned discussion relating facts to the rules and case law.

2 to 2.5 marks

Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned.

1.5 to 1.75 marks

Facts not correctly identified. Analysis incoherent.

0 to 1.25 marks

Scant to no analysis.

Citation and referencing (including minimum number of references)

1.5 marks

1.05 to 1.5 marks

Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, in-text and in reference list.

0.8 to 1 mark

Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in formatting of in-text citations and reference list

0.6 to 0.75 mark

Does not have minimum of 6 references or contains errors in formatting of intext citations and reference list

0 to 0.5 mark

No referencing either in-text or in reference list; or cites inappropriate references; or all references not cited in the correct format.

Professional quality including language use and writing style

1.5 marks

1.05 to 1.5 marks

Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors.

0.8 to 1 mark

Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding.

0.6 to 0.75 mark

Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding. Sloppy.

0 to 0.5 mark

Reflects no real effort.

Deductions

Excess word count (1 mark for every 25 words over)

Under the word limit (1 mark for every 25 word under)

Lacks minimum of 6 references (1 mark for every missing reference)

/td>

Group Presentation

Total marks

available: 10

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Group member participation and division of parts

1.5 marks

1.05 to 1.5 marks

All group members presented and presentation is equally divided among group members; presentation shows an excellent level of effort

0.8 to 1 mark

All group members presented but presentation is not equally divided among group members; presentation shows a high level of effort

0.6 to 0.75 mark

Not all group members presented or presentation is not equally divided among group members; but presentation shows average effort.

0 to 0.5 mark

Not all group members presented and presentation does not show real effort.

Depth of analysis and evidence of understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers

4 marks

3.75 to 4 marks

Displays in-depth analysis and evidence of strong understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers.

3.0 to 3.5 marks

Displays strong analysis and understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers.

2 to 2.75 marks

Shows acceptable level of analysis and understanding of the issues.

0 to 1.75 marks

Does not show acceptable level of analysis and understanding of the issues; merely reads from prepared answers.

Level of professionalism in presentation (including members in appropriate business attire; anduse of visual aids)

3 marks

2.75 to 3 marks

High-level of professionalism in presentation

2 to 2.5 marks

Above average level of professionalism in presentation

1.5 to 1.75 marks

Average level of professionalism in presentation

0 to 1.25 marks

Below average level of professionalism in presentation

Overall clarity of presentation

1.5 marks

1.05 to 1.5 marks

Extremely clear, succinct presentation

0.8 to 1 mark

High level of clarity and succinctness of presentation

0.6 to 0.75 mark

Average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation

0 to 0.5 mark

Below average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation

Diploma Universities Assignments

Laureate International Universities Assignment

Holmes Institute Assignment

Tafe NSW

Yes College Australia

ACC508 Informatics and Financial Applications Task 2 T2, 2019

ACC512 Accounting

ACC520 Legal Regulation of Business Structures Semester 2, 2019

ACCT20074 Contemporary Accounting Theory Term 2 Assessment 3

AERO2463 Computational Engineering Analysis : Assignment 4

B01DBFN212 Database Fundamentals Assessment 1

BE01106 - Business Statistics Assignment

BFA301 Advanced Financial Accounting

BFA504 Accounting Systems Assessment 3

BSB61015 Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management

BSBADV602 Develop an Advertising Campaign

BSBCOM603 Plan and establish compliance management systems case study

BSBCOM603 Plan and establish compliance management systems Assessment Task 1

BSBCOM603 Plan and establish compliance management systems Assessment Task 2

BSBCOM603 Plan and establish compliance management systems Assessment Task 3

BSBFIM501 Manage Budgets And Financial Plans Assessment Task 1

BSBHRM602 Manage Human Resources Strategic Planning

BSBINM601 Manage Knowledge and Information

BSBWOR501 Assessment Task 3 Plan Personal Development Plan Project

BSBMGT517 Manage Operational Plan

BSBWHS521 Ensure a Safe Workplace For a Work Area

BSBWRK510 Manage employee relations

BUSS1030 Accounting, Business and Society

CAB202 Microprocessors and Digital Systems Assignment Help

CHC40213 Certificate IV in Education Support

CHCAGE001 Facilitate the empowerment of older people

CHCAGE005 Provide support to people living with dementia

CHCCCS023 Support independence and wellbeing

CHCCCS025 Support relationships with carers and families

CHCCOM005 Communicate and CHCLEG001 Work Legally Ethically

CHCDIS002 Follow established person-centred behaviour supports

CHCECE019 Early Childhood Education and Care

CHCHCS001 Provide home and community support services

COMP10002 Foundations of Algorithms

COMP90038 Algorithms and Complexity

COSC2633/2637 Big Data Processing

COSC473 Introduction to Computer Systems

CPCCBC5011A Manage Environmental Management Practices And Processes In Building And Construction

CPCCBC5018A Apply structural Principles Medium rise Construction

CSE3OSA Assignment 2019

ELEC242 2019 Session 2

ENN543 Data Analytics and Optimisation

ENN543 Data Analytics and Optimisation Semester 2, 2019

FINM202 Financial Management Assessment 3 Group Report

Forensic Investigation Case Assignment ECU University

HA2042 Accounting Information Systems T2 2019

HC1010 Holmes Institute Accounting For Business

HC2112 Service Marketing and Relationship Marketing Individual Assignment T2 2019

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility T2 2019

HI5002 Holmes Institute Finance for Business

HI5003 Economics for Business Trimester 2 2019

HI5004 Marketing Management T1 2020 Individual Report

HI5004 Marketing Management T1 2020 Group Report

HI5004 Holmes Institute Marketing Management

HI5014 International Business across Borders Assignment 1

HI5014 International Business across Borders

HI5017 Managerial Accounting T2 2019

HI5017 Managerial Accounting T1 2019

HI5019 Tutorial Questions 1

HI5019 Strategic Information Systems for Business and Enterprise T1 2020

HI5019 Holmes Institute Strategic Information Systems T2

HI5019 T2 2019

HI5019 T1 2019

HI5020 Corporate Accounting T3 2019

HI5020 Corporate Accounting T2 2019

HI6005: Management and Organisations in a Global Environment

HI6006 Tutorial questions

HI6006 Competitive Strategy Individual T1 2020

HI6006 Holmes Institute Competitive Strategy

HI6006 Competitive Strategy T3 2019

HI6007 Statistics for business decisions

HI6007 Assessment 2 T1 2020

HI6007 T1 2019

HI6008 T2 2019

HI6008 Holmes Institute Research Project

HI6025 Accounting Theory and Current Issues

HI6026 Audit, Assurance and Compliance Assignment Help

HI6026 Audit, Assurance and Compliance

HI6027 business and corporate law tutorial Assignment T1 2021

HI6027 Business and Corporate Law T3 2019

HI6027 Business and Corporate Law T2 2019

HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice and Law T2 2021

Hi6028 taxation theory, practice and law Final Assessment t1 2021

HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice and Law T2 2019

HI6028 Taxation Theory T1 2019

HI6028 Taxation Law Holmes

HLTAAP001 Recognise healthy body systems

HLTWHS002 Follow safe practices for direct client care

HOTL5003 Hotel Property and Operations

HPS771 - Research Methods in Psychology A

HS2021 Database Design

ICTICT307 Customise packaged software applications for clients

IFN619 Data Analytics for Strategic Decision Makers

INF80028 Business Process Management Swinburne University

ISY2005 Case Assignment Assessment 2

ISYS326: Information Systems Security Assignment 2, Semester 2, 2019

ITAP3010 Developing Data Access Solutions Project

ITECH1103- Big Data and Analytics – Lab 3 – Working with Data Items

ITECH1103- Big Data and Analytics Assignment Semester 1, 2020

ITECH 5500 Professional Research and Communication

Kent Institute Australia Assignment

MA5830 Data Visualisation Assignment 2

MGMT7020 Project Management Plan

Mgt 301 Assessment 3

MGT215 Project Management Individual Assignment

MIS102 Data and Networking Assignment Help

MITS4002 Object Oriented Software Development

MITS5002 Software Engineering Methodology

MKT01760 Tourism Planning Environments Assessment 4

MKT01760 Tourism Planning Environments

MKT01906 International Tourism Systems

MKT5000 Marketing Management S2 2019

MNG03236 Report Writing SCU

MRE5003 Industrial Techniques In Maintenance Management Assignment 4

MRE5003 Industrial Techniques In Maintenance Management Assignment 3

MRE5003 Industrial Techniques In Maintenance Management

Network Security and Mitigation Strategies Answers

NIT2213 Software Engineering Assignment

NSB231 Integrated Nursing Practice Assessment Task 1

Science Literacy Assessment 4

SIT323 Practical Software Development T 2, 2019

SIT718 Using aggregation functions for data analysis

SITXCOM002 Show Social and Cultural Sensitivity

TLIL5055 Manage a supply chain

TLIR5014 Manage Suppliers

USQ ACC5502 Accounting and Financial Management

UTS: 48370 Road and Transport Engineering Assessment 2

CHCAGE001 Facilitate the empowerment of older people

CHCAGE005 Provide support to people living with dementia

CHCCCS011 Meet personal support needs

CHCCCS015 Provide Individualised Support

CHCCCS023 Support independence and wellbeing

CHCCCS025 Support relationships with carers and families

CHCCOM005 Communicate and work in health or community services

CHCDIS001 Contribute to ongoing skills development

CHCDIS002 Follow established person-centred behaviour supports

CHCDIS003 Support community participation and social inclusion

CHCDIS005 Develop and provide person-centred service responses

CHCDIS007 Facilitate the empowerment of people with disability

CHCDIS008 Facilitate community participation and social inclusion

CHCDIS009 Facilitate ongoing skills development

CHCDIS010 Provide person-centred services

CHCDIV001 Work with diverse people

CHCHCS001 Provide home and community support services

CHCLEG001 Work legally and ethically

CHCLEG003 Manage legal and ethical compliance

HLTAAP001 Recognise healthy body systems

HLTAID003 Provide First Aid

HLTHPS007 Administer and monitor medications

HLTWHS002 Follow safe work practices for direct client care

Assignment 2 Introduction to Digital Forensics

MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment 1

MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment 2

Hi5017 Managerial Accounting T1 2021

HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice and Law T1 2021

OODP101 Assessment Task 3 T1 2021

ITNE2003R Network Configuration and Management Project

Australia Universities

ACT

Australian Catholic University

Australian National University

Bond University

Central Queensland University

Charles Darwin University

Charles Sturt University

Curtin University of Technology

Deakin University

Edith Cowan University

Flinders University

Griffith University

Holmes Institute

James Cook University

La Trobe University

Macquarie University

Monash University

Murdoch University

Queensland University of Technology

RMIT University

Southern Cross University

Swinburne University of Technology

University of Adelaide

University of Ballarat

University of Canberra

University of Melbourne

University of Newcastle

University of New England

University of New South Wales

University of Notre Dame Australia

University of Queensland

University of South Australia

University of Southern Queensland

University of Sydney

University of Tasmania

University of Technology Sydney

University of the Sunshine Coast

University of Western Australia

University of Wollongong

Victoria University

Western Sydney University

Year 11 - 12 Certification Assignment

Australian Capital Territory Year 12 Certificate

HSC - Higher School Certificate

NTCE - Northern Territory Certificate of Education

QCE - Queensland Certificate of Education

SACE - South Australian Certificate of Education

TCE - Tasmanian Certificate of Education

VCE - Victorian Certificate of Education

WACE - Western Australia Certificate of Education