Reference no: EM131015913 , Length: word count:2500
Essay requirements are as follows;
Essay question:
In Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Burns [2015] WASC 234, [224] Heenan J stated that in equity ‘the situations in which relief will be granted for unconscionable bargains is both very extensive and ancient.' This refers to the fact that the historical origins of unconscientious conduct are to be found in the equitable principles developed to provide relief from ‘catching bargains.' Justice Heenan then went on to distinguish the case before him from Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392 and noted that on the authority of Kakavas, neither constructive knowledge of a person's disability nor inadvertence will be sufficient to constitute unconscientious conduct.
Therefore, from the judgment in Burns it may be inferred that the role of equity is not to protect people from their own lack of common sense but to provide relief from predatory behaviour. Do you agree with this view?
You must support your arguments with reference to precedent and scholarly secondary authorities.
---------
A word limit of 2,500 words has been set, which excludes footnotes, titles and headings.
Students must use footnotes in accordance with the AGLC.
---------
Assignment tips:
Failure to answer the assignment question is a common problem. You should always read the question carefully and continue to refer back to it as you write your essay. It is very easy to wander off the topic.
Read/research widely. Consult both primary (cases) and secondary (texts and scholarly articles) sources. Do not use only the required texts.
Avoid using generalisations. A generalisation is a broad statement, which is unsupported by specific examples.
For example:
(a) Academic commentators agree that equity is a jurisdiction of conscience.
(b) Equity conflicts with the common law in the area of contract.
In example (a) you must give examples of the names of the "academic commentators" in the actual text of the essay rather than in a footnote.
In example (b) you should go on to present examples of how/why and in what specific area equity conflicts with the law of contract.
Generalisations are not arguments, unless they are supported by specific examples, when they cease to be generalisations.
Avoid using the first person singular ‘I.' I know that in some units you have studied it is acceptable to use ‘I,' but it is not acceptable academic practice.
Every essay should have an introduction and a conclusion. The introduction should restate the essay question in some way and go on to indicate either your argument and/or what you will be discussing (for example, ‘This essay will examine . . ..') This indicates to the reader exactly what to expect from the essay.
The conclusion brings together all of the various aspects of the topic that you have discussed, summarises your argument and presents a fully rounded and discursive ending to the essay.
In the assignment you are required to present an argument and/or point of view. Merely describing the relevant principles does not constitute presenting an argument.
To do this you must analyse - discuss how/why - and evaluate - whether/to what extent/shortcomings - and, most importantly, present your opinions (without using "I").
Do not use case studies or summaries of cases in your essay. Briefly describe the facts of the case and/or cite the ratio or obiter, if they are relevant to your argument. However, if you are citing a principle expounded in a particular case, you must reference the authority.
Merely presenting lengthy descriptions of the relevant principles does not constitute presenting an argument.
Equity is not common law. It is a set of principles.
You must always use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc., 3rd ed, 2010) for your referencing. You will lose marks, if you do not reference correctly.
When stating a proposition or putting forward an argument, you should use that very useful word ‘arguable' or other useful phrases such as: "it could be argued," or "it is suggested here that."
Do not rely on spell check. Always proof read your assignment very carefully.
For example, Spell Check will not pick up the following errors:
"Nocton was Lord Ashburton's rusted solicitor."
"It was therefore not a charitable porpoise because it was not for the pubic benefit."
There is no ‘e' in ‘judgment' (as handed down by a court).'