1

Faculty of Science and Engineering

School of Architecture and Built Environment

Assignment Brief

Module 7CN017 – Legal Obligations

Module Leader Professor Issaka Ndekugri
Semester 1
Year 2022 - 23
Assessment 1 of 1
Number
% of module 100%
mark
Word count 7000
Assignment 28/09/2022
handed out on
Due Date 11/01/2023
Hand-in – what? The assignment should be submitted through CANVAS.

The whole assignment should be submitted as one document.

Only the first document will be graded if multiple documents

are submitted.

Hand-in- where? On Canvas

Pass mark 50%
Feedback Electronic feedback will be provided through CANVAS

Learning Outcomes to be assessed:

LO1: demonstrate understanding of the general principles of the laws of contract and
tort and their relevance to projects and programmes.
LO2: You should be able to synthesize information from different sources and apply
legal principles to determine rights and obligations of project and programme
stakeholders

Knowledge and understanding

 Legal principles governing contracts, tort and dispute resolution

 Terms of construction contracts

 2

Subject Specific Skills & Intellectual Skills

. critical evaluation

. summarise legal arguments

.question standard practice

Marking Criteria:

The University’s generic Performance Descriptors for Level 7 Modules are at the last
page of this document. In assessing the assignment for this Module, we are looking
for the following good features:
• presentation, including appropriate referencing style
• grammar and spelling,
• knowledge and understanding,
• identification of relevant issues,
• use and application of authorities,
• logic and development of argument,
• use of relevant case law
• use of a range of materials and sources.

Submission of work

Your completed work for this assignment should be submitted on or before the due date
through the Canvas Assignment portal. Any special instructions will be available on Canvas
and within the assessment brief. The portal is linked to SITS/e:Vision and this is how your
marks will be identified and transferred. Please do not use any other methods to submit your
work.

You must keep a copy or backup of any assessed work that you submit. Failure to do so
may result in your having to repeat that piece of work.

Penalties for late submission of coursework

Standard University arrangements apply.

 10% reduction in mark for assessments submitted up to 48 hours after the deadline
 20% reduction for assessments submitted 3 to 7 days late.
However, no assessment will be reduced from a pass to fail through this process – all
reductions will stop at the pass mark.
Procedure for requesting extensions / mitigating circumstances

The University's fit to sit and extenuating circumstances policy aims to ensure that students
only submit assessments when they are fit to do so and that no student is disadvantaged by
circumstances beyond their control. Students can self-certify their own sickness absence for
up to seven days for a maximum of three times a year to cover any times when it might be
 3

difficult to obtain medical evidence of short-term illness. Through this self-certification

process, students will get an extension of up to seven days on their assessment without
penalty.

For other reasons than sickness or for longer-term absences, students should apply for
mitigating circumstances and evidence will need to be submitted in accordance with our
normal regulations. Students can contact their Faculty Student Services via the e:Vision
helpdesk for more information or to make a claim. If their claim is accepted, the student will
generally be offered the opportunity to take the assessment, as if for the first time (with no
grade penalty), within the current year.

Retrieval of Failure

Where a student fails a module (less than 40% for undergraduate modules, 50% for
postgraduate modules), they have the right to attempt the failed assessment(s) at the next resit
opportunity (normally April or July resit period). Only one resit attempt will be allowed.  If a
student fails assessment for a second time, they have a right to repeat the module.
NOTE: STUDENTS WHO DO NOT TAKE THEIR RESIT AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE
RESIT OPPORTUNITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPEAT THE MODULE.

Return of assignments

Assignment feedback and unconfirmed marks will normally be provided through CANVAS
within four working weeks. Feedback can be accessed alongside your original assignment
for learning purposes. If you have any questions regarding your feedback or unconfirmed
mark you have two working weeks from the date you receive the returned assessment and/or
written feedback or receive your exam results to contact and discuss the matter with your
lecturer.

Cheating is any attempt to gain unfair advantage by dishonest means and includes
plagiarism and collusion. Cheating is a serious offence. You are advised to check the nature
of each assessment. You must work individually unless it is a group assessment.

Plagiarism is defined as incorporating a significant amount of un-attributed direct quotation

from, or un-attributed substantial paraphrasing of, the work of another.

Collusion occurs when two or more students collaborate to produce a piece of work to be
submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one
student alone.

For further advice, contact the Students’ Union.

 4

ASSSESSMENT TASKS

You are to answer all questions, which carry equal marks. Where a question has multiple
parts, the relative weights of the parts are specified.

QUESTION 1

Explain the doctrine of judicial precedent and discuss its advantages and disadvantages.

QUESTION 2

(a) Explain the terms “remoteness” and “mitigation” as used in connection with damages
for breach of contract (40%).

(b) Ken, a high-flying business executive, entered into a contract for the supply and
installation of replacement windows in his holiday cottage in the Lake District. The
agreed price was £10,000 payable upon completion. By agreement with the contractor,
the work was to be carried out by a sub-contractor. Ken also agreed to pay the amount
to the sub-contractor. As Ken was required to be in attendance whilst the work was
being done, he took a day off from work to do this. However, when the sub-contractors
arrived they said they would not start until Ken promised to pay them £12,000. Ken
declined and had the work done by another contractor for £13,000. Advise Ken as to
whether Ken can recover from the first contractor damages for: (i) the additional cost of
getting the work done; (ii) 12 hours of time wasted @ £500/hour; and (iii)
disappointment and hurt (60%).

QUESTION 3

(a) Identify and explain the legal principles governing what constitutes an “offer” in law of
contract (40%)

(b) Apply the principles referred to above to determine whether the following constitute offers

(i) Goods on display in a shop (15%)

(ii) Advertisements of goods for sale (15%)

(iii) Tenders (15%)

(iv) Quotations (15%).

QUESTION 4

Shortly after a bridge constructed by ABC Contractors Ltd was taken over, it collapsed whilst a bus
was passing over it. Several passengers died on the spot whilst many suffered horrific injuries. The
accident scene was described as very gory.

Assuming that the collapse was a result of their failure to comply with design drawings provided by
the project owner, advise ABC Contractors as to their possible liability for the following injuries and
losses.
 5

(a) A man who was fishing in the waters below was severely injured.

(b) Another fisherman, who narrowly escaped drowning, is given to violent trembling at the sight of
any mass of water.

(c) A passer-by who went to help the passengers is no longer able to work because of witnessing
their injuries.

(d) A motorist who came on the scene fainted and has been committed to a mental home.

(e) The father, brother and boyfriend of one of the passengers went to the hospital to which the
passengers were sent and saw her unconscious in the casualty department waiting to be attended
to. All of them have been off work for 6 months on medical instructions.

General principles of liability: 50%; application to each part: 10%.

QUESTION 5

Compare and contrast adjudication with arbitration as dispute resolution techniques.

 6

University Performance Descriptors

(updated September 2015) Level – 7
90-100% This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a
Outstanding professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which
presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a
totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current
Distinction theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high
level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No
obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80-89% The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional
Excellent context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence
of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the
position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples
Distinction of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical
analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of
originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70-79% There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and
Very major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of
good the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing
perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct
manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying
Merit assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60-69% The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in
Good an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the
judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue
relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a
comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a
willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and
practical application within a given professional context.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50-59% The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of
Pass engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there
is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on
presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning
outcomes. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
40-49% Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address
Fail each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to
apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive
account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis
or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or
considered. There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that
the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
30-39% The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions
Fail of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of
relevant theory. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the
assignment without retaking the module.
20-29% Fail This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to
appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is
unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
10-19% This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as
Fail appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely
badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
0-9% Fail No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.