The story of Rob of dental Delights
Case Study: The Story of Rob of Dental Delights Pty Ltd
In January 2018, Dental Delights Pty Ltd, led by Rob, a young and entrepreneurial dentist, bought a block of land and engaged Brad the Builder Pty Ltd to lead the building of the project, a new dental clinic specialising in dental implants. As Rob was keen to open for business, he requested Brad to finish the project three weeks earlier than planned, with the promise of a sizeable bonus. Brad readily agreed as he wanted to impress Rob. Brad asked his interior designer, Melanie, to work ten consecutive days so they could meet the deadline. Melanie complied, as she was keen to get more work from Brad in the future. After she had finished her work and at a celebratory lunch, Brad promised Melanie an extra $3,000 for her efforts. The next day, however, they had a massive row about the way she talked to Rob. Brad told her she can go and find work elsewhere and to forget about the $3,000.
Discuss whether Melanie can sue Brad?
Rob of Dental Delights does not like some of the exclusive furniture in the waiting rooms, and the supplier will not take it back, because it has now been used. Rob advertises it for $20,000, and a man appears within hours to inspect it. Rob is convinced the man is the well-known actor, Vince Colosimo, and his belief is reinforced when the man says, “Call me Vince”. In fact, this ‘Vince’ is a rogue who happens to look like the actor. ‘Vince’ loves the furniture and gives Rob $5,000 in cash. He does not ask for a receipt and says he will transfer the remaining $15,000 electronically to the account of Dental Delights within two days. The following day, the man’s two friends collect the furniture and assure Rob that Vince will indeed pay up within 24 hours. The payment does not arrive, so Rob contacts the police, who eventually locate the furniture at Judy’s house. Judy said she bought the furniture for $20,000 from a man who looked distinctly like someone she had seen in a TV series.
Can Rob recover the furniture from Judy?
At a party, Rob meets Jeff Price, who is an accountant and financial adviser. Rob tells Jeff that he plans to expand his business. Jeff knows nothing about Dental Delights Pty Ltd, but as he is slightly inebriated, he tells Rob that his dental business is in a sound position to expand. Relying on that statement, Rob borrows $50,000 from Northpac Credit, a small credit union. Unfortunately, things do not go as planned, as Rob has underestimated the costs of expanding the business. Rob has to forfeit $5,000 deposit on new premises and defaults on the Northpac loan. Rob now wants to sue Jeff for damages.
Advise Rob if Jeff owes him a duty of care for negligent misrepresentation. Find two cases to support your conclusion. (Do not discuss breach of duty of care, causation and remoteness.)
Area tested: Research and negligent misstatement
In a casual conversation with fellow business professionals at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Rob was told that his business had to comply with international business standards.
Give ONE example of a UN Global Compact principle (there are ten in total) that might have particular relevance to Rob in his dental practice, and explain why in a short paragraph.
Area tested: Research and global citizenship
Guidelines for Completing Assessment 2
The objective of this task is to provide you with another opportunity to formalise a written answer to a legal problem, as you will be presented with similar legal problem questions in the exam. 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 in commerce. It is important that your discussion focuses on analysing the facts of the hypothetical problem 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 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 adapted to the facts – will attract limited marks only.